Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

FELTHAM STATION AREA REDEVELOPMENT (LONGFORD RIVER) BILL

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No.2) BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

HERTSMERE BOROUGH COUNCIL (ROWLEY LANE) BILL

LONDON TRANSPORT (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

LONDON TRANSPORT (LIVERPOOL STREET) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

PORT OF LONDON BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

SAINT THOMAS' BURIAL GROUND (SOUTHWARK) BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SEVERN-TRENT WATER AUTHORITY BILL

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 11 February.

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

WEST YORKSHIRE (PARKING AND TRANSPORT) BILI.

Read a Second time and committed.

HUMBERSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday 11 February.

WESTERN ISLES ISLANDS COUNCIL (LOCH ROAG) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Closed Shop

Mr. Dover: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on his trade union reform proposals on the closed shop.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): During the recent consultation period I received about 130 representations on the Government's proposals for changes in the law on the closed shop. A substantial majority of these endorsed the need to provide greater protection for individual liberties in the closed shop and in general welcomed the proposals. I have, however, made a number of changes to the proposals in the light of the representations received.

Mr. Dover: Will the Minister confirm that several individuals and organisations prevailed on him to try to give freedom to belong or not to belong to a trade union? If there is an overwhelming vote against the continuance of closed shops, will the Minister try to take measures to terminate them forthwith?

Mr. Tebbit: I understand the feelings of my hon. Friend and many others on the matter. However, it is right, at this stage, to proceed by making it possible for those injured by the operation of closed shops to receive compensation rather than, head-on, to attempt to make unlawful a practice that has been lawful for a long time.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister accept that his attempt to restrict the effects of the closed shop has no possibility of success, not merely because the unions object to it so fiercely, but because the vast majority of managers who work with closed shops much prefer to do so?

Mr. Tebbit: No, Sir.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that whilst there may have been some difference of interpretation by Conservative trade unionists, broadly speaking they support the principles of what he is trying to do and are greatly encouraged by the substance of his recent White Paper?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. I regret that other trade union organisations have not been so constructive and willing to discuss the detail of the Bill. The changes to the limits of compensation that could be awarded against trade unions were made at the particular request of Conservative Trade Unionists.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a further indication of his thinking on this matter, particularly on that part of the Bill concerning registering a closed shop after a five to seven-year period, with a percentage vote of members and so on? As the right hon. Gentleman voted against that in 1980, when some of us voted for it, what has changed his mind between now and then?

Mr. Tebbit: My Bill contains no proposal for re-registering a closed shop. There is no requirement to register one.

Mr. Varley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the mis-named Employment Bill will not create one extra job or prevent one redundancy? On the contrary, it is likely to create a good deal of conflict in industry and do nothing to restore economic health. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not concentrate on what he was appointed to do—to create jobs rather than to introduce punishing legislation that will do a great deal of damage?

Mr. Tebbit: To some extent I understand the right hon. Gentleman's feelings about the title of the Bill. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to have called it the workers' rights Bill, but I was persuaded that it would be better to retain the same title as previous employment measures for ease of identification.
All my energies are dedicated towards increasing the number of viable jobs open to men and women. That is why I strongly support the financial strategy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, which is designed to reduce inflation, increase the competitiveness of British industry and recapture jobs that have been lost.

Females

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of females in employment in the United Kingdom; and how this figure compares with 10 years earlier.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): The number of females in employment in the United Kingdom in September 1981 was 9,264,000. This compares with a figure of 8,790,000 in September 1971.

Mr. Chapman: In view of the increase in unemployment during the decade, and the fact that there has been a significant increase in the number of people wanting jobs, is not that increase of 500,000 a remarkable statistic? Does it not underline the changing pattern of employment in the United Kingdom and the fact that many more women want to start a job outside the home in industry or business? Will not that trend continue?

Mr. Alison: I am sure that trend will continue. It is a remarkable figure and reflects the growth of the service sector in the economy, where female labour is particularly attractive and effective.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that the sense of hopelessness as a result of Government policy has affected a large number of women who are not re-registering and being counted as being unemployed? Is it not also the case that a vast number of women want to work and would do so, except that Government policy does not allow them to? Are they not in absolute despair about it?

Mr. Alison: On the contrary, my answer proves exactly the reverse. Over the decade many more women have found jobs.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the large number of unemployed fathers supporting wives and young children, should not some women in well-paid jobs who are married to men examine their consciences and decide whether in certain circumstances they might give up their jobs?

Mr. Alison: I am glad that my hon. Friend added the rider that they are married to men. No doubt, if the wife was married to my hon. Friend, she would undoubtedly be persuaded to give up work. For the rest, it is by no means certain that the kind of jobs…largely part-time—in service industries that women might vacate would be suitable for or sought after by men.

Trade Unions (Contributions to Political Parties)

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the payment from contributions to trade unions by their members of sums to political parties, except with the express authorisation of the contributor.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): No, Sir. The Employment Bill sets out our priorities for legislation in this Session.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many trade union members who contribute to Labour Party funds by failing to contract-out of the political levy no longer support the Labour Party? In the interests of fairness and democracy, will he now seek to amend the Employment Bill and reintroduce contracting-in?

Mr. Waddington: I remind my hon. Friend that the question of contracting-in and contracting-out was not canvassed in the Green Paper. Our present proposals are concerned with industrial relations problems that need to be tackled immediately. Clearly, the Government cannot commit themselves about the future. Let us take one step at a time.

Mr. Crowther: Does the Minister agree that the right of trade unionists to contract out of paying the political levy contrasts sharply with the fact that shareholders are unable to prevent companies from paying their money to the Conservative Party?

Mr. Waddington: That is not a good point. The shareholder can sell his shares. All too often, as a result of the closed shop, a person is obliged to be a member of a union that gives active support to a political party that he detests.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were out of work in the Leek parliamentary constituency at the most recent count; and what was the comparable figure in the same month in 1974.

Mr. Alison: In the area covered by the Biddulph, Cheadle, Kidsgrove, and Leek employment offices, which corresponds closely to the Leek parliamentary constituency, 5,407 people were registered as unemployed at January 1982. The corresponding figure at January 1974 was 668.

Mr. Knox: How does my right hon. Friend explain a more than eightfold increase in unemployment in an area where wages and salaries are, and have been, low, productivity high and labour relations excellent?

Mr. Alison: The clue lies in what happened nationally to unit labour costs during the period of the Labour Government. British unit labour costs doubled, whereas in Japan they did not go up. That is the full explanation for the high national level of unemployment as well as the regrettable local level of unemployment in the Leek constituency.

Mr. Golding: Why, then, has the pottery industry lost 40 per cent. of its jobs? Was there high pay, bad industrial relations, lack of export drive and lack of managerial initiative be fore 1974? Does the Minister realise that the level of unemployment in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) has risen from about 4 to 13.3 per cent. since the general election?

Mr. Alison: The pottery industry would undoubtedly have been affectd by the oil price increase, as it is an industry that uses firing processes. The hon. Gentleman will know that, since 1973, the price of oil has gone up by 2,000 per cent. and by about three times since 1979 alone. High costs not compensated for by higher productivity have priced many British products out of the market.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware—as I am, since I represent a constituency that virtually adjoins the constituencies of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) —that unemployment in our area has increased not as a result of a lack of competitiveness but as a result of unfair competition from abroad? When will the Government take steps to ensure that British industry, which has shown moderation, good sense and good managerial skills, can compete fairly against the countries that are taking our jobs?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend must be referring to the textile industry. He will know that the Government have taken a firm line in defence of the British textile industry in the negotiations for the new MFA.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that although jobs have been lost in the pottery and textile industries and the many associated industries in and around the North Midlands, the casino economy belt, which includes financial institutions, building societies and estate agencies in areas such as Leek and Macclesfield, has mushroomed? Does that not show that jobs are being lost in manufacturing industry because of the massively high interest rates operated by the Government?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman must come to terms with the cause of the high unemployment. That cause is simple to explain. During the period of the Labour Government British unit labour costs doubled. In Japan they did not increase, in Germany they increased by one fifth, in the United States of America they increased by one-third, and in Canada they increased by about one half. In Britain, unit labour costs doubled. The root cause of the present high levels of unemployment lies firmly in the period of the Labour Government.

Youth Training Scheme

Mrs. Faith: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission on the implementation of the proposed youth training scheme.

Mr. Tebbit: I meet the chairman of the MSC from time to time to discuss matters such as the proposed youth training scheme; the Government's White Paper drew substantially upon recommendations made by the commission.

Mrs. Faith: In his deliberations with the Manpower Services Commission, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that people expect the new youth training scheme to give young people real training, so that they can acquire skills that will stand them in good stead when they look for jobs at the end of the year?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that the training content of the youth training scheme is of a sufficiently high quality and of a nature best suited to the local employment prospects of the young people

Mr. Marks: Does the Secretary of State regard such schemes as adequate substitutes for the many thousands of apprenticeships that have been lost, including the many apprenticeships that the Government have destroyed for their employees?

Mr. Tebbit: No, Sir. The scheme is not intended to be a substitute for apprenticeships. It lasts for one year. II is important that the Government should continue to support the same number of apprentices, at a cost of about £50 million per annum. It is also important that trade unions should collaborate with the Government, employers and the MSC in reforming apprenticeships, so that we get rid of the old-fashioned age restrictions on entry and reach a system in which apprentices gain qualifications on the basis of their skills, rather than on how long they have served.

Mr. Haselhurst: Have my right hon. Friend's discussions covered the amount of the allowance to be paid under the scheme? Has any evidence reached him to suggest that that will be a crucial factor in the take-up?

Mr. Tebbit: It is too early to say whether that will be a crucial factor. It is unlikely to be so, because the evidence shows that youngsters would be glad to accept good quality training, even if there were no pay. After all, their brothers and sisters often do so in the sixth form at school. However, I have asked the MSC to consider that point and it will give me its views some time, I 5elieve, in April.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is there not a sharp and worrying divide between the great resources spent on the young unemployed and the virtual standstill on training for young people in employment? Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the element of compulsion and the disqualification from benefit are repulsive, and that the £750 allowance is niggardly and provocative to potential recruits and trade unionists alike?

Mr. Tebbit: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should put it that way. He should consider the amount of training given to young people in industry. The great majority of industrial training is carried on in industry. Of course there should be more and better training, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not write off what is being done.
The hon. Gentleman will have heard my answer about the allowance. How can he speak about "compulsion"? There is no compulsion on youngsters to join the scheme. When it is open to a youngster to take a place on the scheme and to receive an allowance, I fail to see why he should have the option of sitting at home and receiving money from taxpayers—his fellows—for doing so.

Youth Opportunities Programme

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence his Department has received that employers are using young people in the youth opportunities programme as a substitute for full-time adult workers.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): The Manpower Services Commission receives from time to time allegations of substitution, and evidence of it is sometimes found. The commission and the careers service make every effort to prevent all forms of abuse of the programme.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread fear among the trade union movement, particularly in Sheffield, that more and more employers are using the youth opportunities programme as a source of cheap labour? Will the Minister carry out a serious investigation and publish figures to answer the allegations made?

Mr. Morrison: I am informed that in the past 12 months there have been five allegations of substitution on existing schemes in Sheffield. Upon investigation by the commission's staff, none of those allegations was proved. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. As I have said, when allegations are made with the right type of evidence, we seek to ensure, by proper checks, that there is no substitution.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend aware that many mature people who have the good fortune to be employed welcome the opportunity that is given to young people to acquire useful industrial training and the habit of disciplined employment?

Mr. Morrison: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will agree that the development from the youth opportunities programme to the new training scheme should be applauded.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister realise that some Government employees, particularly in the Inland Revenue Department, believe that the Government are abusing the youth opportunities programme to obtain cheap labour? If those allegations are correct, would that not be disgraceful conduct for any Government Department?

Mr. Morrison: I have not heard that allegation before. However, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me about it, I shall be happy to look into it.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are unemployed in the city of Leicester; and how many and what percentage of them are under the age of 25 years and over 50 years, respectively.

Mr. Alison: On 14 January the provisional total number of people registered as unemployed in the Leicester employment office area was 23,700. Of those, 9,129–39 per cent. — were under 25 years of age and 4,505–19 per cent.—were aged 50 years and over.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that those shocking figures show that there are now two lost generations in the once prosperous city of Leicester? I refer to the young people who leave school and emerge from youth training, but who never get jobs, and the older people who have been made redundant and who feel that they will never find work again. Without forgetting the in-between generation, what will the Minister do to help those most vulnerable to the present, terrible misery?

Mr. Alison: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the figures are terrible. I personally regard every individual who loses a job as having an experience that is equivalent to bereavement, although, mercifully, in many cases it is reversible. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard that a number of special measures have been introduced, particularly to help the young unemployed, as well as a number of other special measures to help people over the age of 60.

Industrial Disputes

Mr. Whitney: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many industrial disputes commenced during the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waddington: The number of industrial stoppages recorded by my Department as beginning in 1980 was 1,330. For 1981 the provisional figure is 1,280, the lowest figure for 40 years.

Mr. Whitney: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the figures show a return to a sense of realism in British industry, and that it is only if the strike continues to be rejected as a weapon of first resort that we shall achieve a genuine economic recovery?

Mr. Waddington: Certainly, the figures are encourageing. Fewer days were lost through strikes in 1981 than in any year since 1976. Clearly, the figures show a greater realism and responsibility, as well as a realisation that strikes destroy jobs and are an expensive luxury that we cannot afford.

Mr. Pavitt: Does the Minister realise that for every three days lost through industrial stoppages in 1980, 27 days were lost through ill health? Will he seek to persuade his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put public expenditure into an occupational Health Service, which would do a great deal for the productivity and competitiveness of our nation?

Mr. Waddington: The fact that many days are lost through ill health is no reason to ignore the enormous number of days that were lost in the past through industrial disputes. It is not for me to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I hope that he will support Conservative Members who are saying that it is to the advantage of all of us if this new realism in industry is cultivated.

Mr. Madel: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the reasons why we have had a reasonable degree of industrial peace during the past two years is that the Employment Act 1980 struck the right balance


between management and unions, and that both management and unions are operating the Act carefully and sensibly?

Mr. Waddington: It is true that when the 1980 Act went through the House we heard many warlike noises, and we were told that the result of the Act would be conflict in industry. It shows how little Labour Members speak for the working people of this country in that none of that conflict has arisen.

Mr. Harold Walker: If industrial relations are showing such a marked improvement, what justification is there for the Secretary of State choosing this moment to introduce a Bill that can only further poison industrial relations? Is it not true that part of the improvement is due to the fact that many workers are now workless, and that there is no scope for striking in the dole queue?

Mr. Waddington: There is a simple answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. The need for the legilsation arises from the need for there to be more safeguards for the rights of individuals and the need to define more clearly what is and what is not acceptable in industrial action.

Industrial Democracy

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in the introduction of industrial democracy since the Government took office.

Mr. Alison: We have extended private ownership through our measures for privatisation and ensured that employees in the enterprises concerned have been able to acquire shares on favourable terms.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that, at the time when the Tory Party and the CBI were seeking to discredit the Bullock proposals, they laid great emphasis on their eagerness to advance industrial democracy through voluntary means? If that was not just a wrecking device, will the Minister tell us what progress has been made under voluntarism during the past three years, what specific encouragement the Government have given to companies to advance industrial democracy, and what record he has of the laggards? What does he now propose to do specifically to advance the process?

Mr. Alison: We are carefully monitoring the progress that is taking place. I note, for example, that over 80 per cent. of the company chief executives who recently took part in the CBI survey felt that employee involvement policies had brought tangible gains in performance. Progress is being made, and we shall continue to encourage it.

Mr. Needham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what Lord Bullock did for industrial democracy caused as much damage as Attila the Hun caused to the Roman Empire?

Mr. Alison: "Yes" must be the best and most complete answer to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Radice: Does the Minister realise that the Government's reactionary attitude to this question means that they are way behind the rest of Western Europe, and that enlightened management is deeply disappointed about it? Does he accept that the Government would do a great

service to industrial relations if they dropped their anti-union legislation and, instead, spent some time thinking about industrial democracy?

Mr. Alison: I do not think that we are way behind the rest of Europe. The EEC Commission has not yet finalised its current proposals, and we have to wait for them to know the real cumulative opinion in Europe.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total number of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom; what was the figure for May 1979; and what the increase has been in percentage terms between the two dates.

Mr. Tebbit: At 14 January the provisional total number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 3,071,000. The seasonally adjusted figure, excluding school leavers, was 2,828,900, and the corresponding figure for May 1979 was 1,312,000. The increase between the two dates was 1,516,900, or 115.6 per cent.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that those shameful and disgraceful figures illustrate the misery and devastation that have been caused to many people in this country as a result of the Government's policies? Does he agree that all the evidence shows that unemployment will continue to increase? Was that not the clear message in the speech made yesterday by the Leader of the House?

Mr. Tebbit: In a world where it is clear that almost every industrialised country has suffered a sharp increase in unemployment and where unemployment in many countries is now accelerating far faster than in Britain, it is childlike to put all the blame on the Government for these problems. The hon. Gentleman should try to grow up and understand the deep-seated, long-standing problems of British industry, which made it more vulnerable to the recession than any other country.

Mr. Forman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Department on their efforts to alleviate some of the most acute problems of unemployment, notably those affecting young people, but will he assure the House that he is prepared to turn his attention to the problem of the long-term unemployed, which seems to many of us to be the most worrying aspect of the underlying unemployment figures?

Mr. Tebbit: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I was handed an important note and I missed what he said. I should be obliged if he would repeat it.

Mr. Forman: I said that I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Department on the efforts that they have made to alleviate many of the problems of unemployment, particularly those affecting young people, but will he now turn his attention to the problems of the long-term unemployed, which many of us believe to be one of the most serious and tragic aspects of the unemployment problem?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend draws attention to what is becoming a most serious poblem, that of the long-term unemployed. I do not believe that there is any quick and simple answer to the problem. The only answer is to


restore the competitiveness of British industry to the position in which it can sell goods to its customers and thus create the new jobs that are required for those people.

Mr. John Grant: Does the Secretary of State recognise that his mixture of calculated offensiveness and sheer complacency on this issue is nothing but an insult to the 3 million unemployed in this country, and that by his attitude he is dragging a great Department of State into the political gutter alongside him? Will he now address himself seriously to the question that he dodged last week and which he has just been asked again: why is it that, when we shall have 1 million long-term unemployed before the end of this year, all that he can offer is 30,000 places on the community enterprise programme, which he knows the Manpower Services Commission considers to be quite inadequate? When will he do something about this problem?

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could spare the time to listen to my reply. He should turn his attention to the fact that jobs are created not by Governments but by customers who are willing to buy the goods and services offered. Governments cannot wave a wand in the way that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends now pretend that they can do, but were unable to do when they supported the Labour Government.

Mr. Woolmer: Does the Secretary of State recognise that in Yorkshire there are now more than 280,000 unemployed, with 45 people chasing every job? Does he accept any responsibility for the increase in unemployment under his Government? If he does accept some responsibility, what changes does he believe we need to bring unemployment down?

Mr. Tebbit: I entirely accept the collective responsibility of the Government for the fact that many people have been displaced from jobs in overmanned industries. I take it that the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that the prospects of British Leyland or British Steel would be improved by putting back those men to recreate the overmanning and to reduce the efficiency of the industries.
My proposals are that the Government should continue with their present strategy and that we should take some heart from the fact that short-time working is falling, overtime is increasing, unemployment is rising more slowly and that more jobs are being offered now than 12 months ago.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is not one of the difficulties an attitude of mind? Is it not regrettable that 60 per cent. of those surveyed in an important poll published a few days ago believed that it was not important whether they worked for an outfit that made profits or did not make profits?

Mr. Tebbit: That underlines the extent to which we need a little better economic education, not only among those 60 per cent. outside, but among the 40 per cent. in the Opposition.

Mr. Varley: Does not the optimistic talk that we have just heard from the Secretary of State about vacancies and short-time working contrast sharply with the sober analysis that was given last night by his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, in which he implied that job prospects and living standards would not improve in the time left to the Government? In view of the Lord
President's propaganda-co-ordinating role, would it not be a good thing if he and the Secretary of State got together so that at least they could sing the same song?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman again does not seem to have understood anything of what has been said by the Government in the House for many weeks. My right hon. Friend and I are at one in pointing out that there are no slick, easy solutions that can reduce unemployment overnight. That is the right hon. Gentleman's song. We are at one in pointing out that we need to hold (down wages and wage costs to improve competitiveness, and in pointing out that we face a world recession with a world problem that can only be worsened in Britain by the adoption of the irresponsible policies offered by the right hon. Gentleman or his former right hon. and hon. Friends.

Youth Training Scheme

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what date he expects to be able to bring forward legislation to implement the youth training scheme.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The implementation of the youth training scheme will not require legislation by my Department. We have asked the Manpower Services Commission to launch the scheme by the autumn of 1983.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Although it is peripheral in the White Paper, does my hon. Friend consider that, from earlier supplementary questions today and generally, an important constituency consideration for many of us is the updating of the apprenticeship schemes, especially for qualifications and time served? Is he satisfied that that proposal, which I appreciate will not be enforced until 1985, can be implemented without legislation?

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the need to update apprenticeships. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I shall do everything within our power to get away from time-serving and on to standards.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister assure the House that he is in constant touch with the voluntary and unofficial bodies in the area, which have long experience, and that their experience will be used?

Mr. Morrison: I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I am in touch with the voluntary organisations, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends. They have an important part to play in the implementation of the youth training scheme and I shall do everything that I can to ensure that they are properly consulted on the matter.

Mr. Barry Jones: Can the Minister tell the House when we might debate this important scheme? If there is a crisis in the availability of apprenticeships, why is he going forward with the abolition of many training boards?

Mr. Morrison: The timing of a debate on the youth training scheme is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, or the Leader of the Opposition if he chooses to use a Supply day for the purpose. As to a crisis in apprenticeships, the hon. Gentleman is surely aware that we are supporting 35,000 first-year apprentices this year, at a cost of £50 million, which demonstrates that we have the matter very much under control.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Archie Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having futher meetings later today.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to read a report from the TUC calling for a massive £8.3 billion injection of taxpayers' money into the economy? Will she confirm that she and her right hon. Friends are as likely to condone such an irresponsible and disastrous reflation of the economy as is Mr. Len Murray to call for the voluntary ending of closed shop agreements?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that such an injection would be totally irresponsible, because people never say from where the money is to come. If it were to come from taxation it would impose far too high a burden, and if it were to come from borrowing it would impose interest rates that would be far too high. If it were to come from inflation, we would go right up in the inflation stakes, because inflation is a tax, although one does not need to get it through in the Finance Bill.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady not believe that it would be wiser to study the TUC document before she tries to pronounce judgment upon it? Meantime, can she take the opportunity, as I am sure she would wish, to comment on the remarkable speech of the Leader of the House last night? Car she tell us whether that was an official statement of Government policy and, further, whether the figures on which he based the speech were before the Cabinet lass: week? Is that the reason why she regarded it as an "excellent Cabinet"?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to respond to the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend made an excellent speech last night, so good that I wish to quote from it.
This Government is completely committed to a long-term economic recovery that can be sustained, and a restoration of our ability to compete with—and beat—our overseas rivals … The Conservative Party has never shrunk from such challenges in the past. We are facing up to them now.
May I go on?
For whatever the work ethic of the 1990s may be, it is certain it must be based on our competitiveness: on our ability to produce the right goods at the right price for the right markets. This is the only basis on which Government, managements and trade unions can realistically seek to create new employment opportunities.
The speech is so good that I might have written it myself.

Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether she wrote the other part of the speech that she has not quoted—the part that says that there will be no early reduction in unemployment and that living standards are bound to fall? Did she write the part of the speech that led The Daily Telegraph to print the headline:
Bleak View of Economy by Pym"?
Does the Right hon. Lady agree with that?

The Prime Minister: Has the right hon. Gentleman been listening to what I have said—[Hon. Members: "Answer"]—about unemployment, which was similar to what my right hon. Friend said? An increase in output

always comes first. A reduction in unemployment follows, but some time after. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the speeches of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), he will find that a similar expression was used when we had 1.6 million unemployed. There is nothing new about it. It may be new to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not new to anyone else.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady thinks that there was nothing new in the speech, why does she think that The Daily Telegraph gave it such prominence?

The Prime Minister: Because it was a very good speech.

Mr. Warren: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 2 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Warren: While I applaud the Prime Minister's public statements on the problems of Poland, may I ask her to take time in her busy day to seek to collaborate with other Western leaders to impress upon the Russian leadership that, not only is it failing to respond to Western protests about its sponsorship of the destruction of freedom in Poland, but blatantly is ignoring them? Will she try to get the Russians to accept public international responsibility for their actions?

The Prime Minister: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the Russian attitude. There is no doubt about Soviet complicity in events in Poland. I understand that NATO will be meeting tomorrow to try to give some signals to the Soviet Union on how we regard its complicity. I hope that we shall be able to agree on some matters to that effect. In the meantime, as we all know, freedom and Communism cannot exist alongside each other.

Dr. Owen: As the Leader of the House says that living standards are bound to fall, when does the Prime Minister think that they will rise?

The Prime Minister: Living standards will rise only when Britain earns that rise either by selling goods and services that people—

Dr. Owen: When?

The Prime Minister: I cannot predict precisely when that will be. It will depend on the performance of industry. Living standards fell during many years under the Labour Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. They fell in 1975 in three of the four quarters. They fell again in 1976 and fell substantially in 1977. There was a partial recovery in a pre-election boom in 1978, but that did not succeed.

Mr. Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend find some time today to read the letter in this morning's edition of The Times from the chairman and secretary of the Social Democratic Party in South Hampshire? Will she note that these two gentlemen are now disillusioned with the Social Democrats, that they will not be renewing their membership and that they now regard the Social Democratic Party as a fraud and a delusion?

The Prime Minister: I read the letter. What my hon. Friend says seems to be true, but it does not seem to be news. In the 120 Divisions since the Social Democratic


Party was formed, it is not surprising to note that on 105 occasions SDP Members have voted with the Socialists. That shows their true nature.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that shortly before the 1979 general election she visited Carpets International in my constituency, which had won two Queen's Awards for exports and which was considered to be a showpiece? It has now laid off over 500 employees, when there are already 6,000 unemployed in Halifax. Will she now pay a return visit to Carpets International to explain to the work force the benefits of a Conservative Government?

The Prime Minister: It so happens that I remember very well my visit to that most excellent carpet factory. One of the things that the management showed me was its latest machinery. Previously its machinery could weave about 1 yard of the best carpets in about one hour. I was told that the new machinery could produce about 350 yards in about an hour. I was also told that at that time, during the lifetime of the Labour Government, there would be about 250 redundancies because of the new technology.

Mr. Bob Dunn: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the recent decision of the Birmingham industrial tribunal that the four Walsall dinner ladies should get their jobs back? Is it not a scandal that they are not to be reinstated?

The Prime Minister: It is a scandal if they are not to be reinstated. They lost their jobs only because they refused to join a trade union. They were very good at their jobs. If they are not to be reinstated, I am happy that at least they are to be entitled to compensation under the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has introduced. We shall at least be able to undo the damage that was done by the Labour Government, aided and abetted by the present Social Democratic Party.

Mr. Faulds: In view of the appalling unemployment figures, and in view of the general industrial collapse, would the right hon. Lady recall today that, with my usual prescience and percipience, I warned at one of her first Question Times after she entered Downing Street with that misguided Franciscan quotation that she would create of Britain a disaster area? Was I right or wrong?

The Prime Minister: Wrong as usual, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to say so.

Mr. McQuarrie: My right hon. Friend's attention will have been drawn to the news yesterday that British Leyland is to increase the labour force at Jaguar by about 400 as a direct result of the 600 cars that were sold to the United States last month, which was a record. That was achieved against the background of a 20 per cent. recession in car sales in the United States. Does she agree that Jaguar's success is a clear indication that the efforts of British Leyland and the Government's proposals for working with British Leyland are proving successful?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I hope that the good work sales will continue. If they do, that will be good for everyone.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Will the Prime Minister take time today to return once again to the dissidents—I do not mean in Poland or Russia—on the Government Back Benches, who in increasing numbers are becoming disillusioned and in some instances diametrically opposed to her policies? For how long does she think she can retain their support? Will she continue to award knighthoods in each Honours List as a means of ensuring support for her and the Government?

The Prime Minister: For and beyond the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 2 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marlow: Any normal commercial undertaking that had been bled dry by a destructive strike would neither come running to the Government for funds nor, alternatively, seek to bring forward destructive price increases. Will my right hon. Friend take action to ensure that the British Rail monopoly does not move in either of these directions and is forced to retrieve its loss-making position either by improvements in productivity or a combination of that and lower-than-average pay settlements, which is what would happen to anybody in the private sector?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the strike is damaging to the future of the railways and damaging to Britain. We need to have increased productivity if we are to have a successful British railway system. As my hon. Friend knows well, if there are considerable fare or freight charge increases, there will be a further loss of business and a further loss of jobs.

Mr. Christopher Price: Now that the Prime Minister has delivered her broadcast in part of "Let Poland be Poland", will she consider making two more, one called "Let Turkey be Turkey" and the other called "Let El Salvador be El Salvador"—or is her attitude to imprisonment and torture conditioned by whether the tortureres and prison warders are members and supporters of NATO or of the Communist bloc?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that most people, if not the hon. Gentleman, would recognise that what has happened in Poland is uniquely important to that country. Just when the Poles were attempting to get a spark of freedom, it was crushed by a military Government. With regard to El Salvador, elections are planned—(Interruption.]—for 28 March. All opposition parties, including the political wing of the armed opposition, have been invited to participate in constituent assembly elections on 28 March. It would be a great advance in Poland—

Mr. Winnick: What about the atrocities?

The Prime Minister: —if opposition parties were invited to participate in the electionsmdash;—

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Lady is a hypocrite.

The Prime Minister: Of course, the hon. Gentleman does not like it, but there will be elections in El Salvador. It would be a great advance if there were elections in Poland.

Oral Answers to Questions — Registration of Commercial Lobbying Interests

Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide a public register of organizations who carry out the lobbying of Parliament for commercial gain, the disclosure of expenditure by such organisations and for connected purposes.
My Bill requires that all companies, sole traders or partnerships who seek to organise the lobbying of Parliament to try to influence the course of legislation or its application as their sole or major commercial purpose shall be registered. The register would be maintained by the House of Commons Commission and would be available in the House of Commons Library. Hon. Members will recall that the Commission consists of yourself, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the House, a Member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and three other hon. Members appointed by the House, none of whom shall be a Minister of the Crown. The Commission was established under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, which was the fifth such Act, demonstrating that dealing with the organisation of an aspect of Parliament by legislative means is by no means new.
It has been suggested to me that registration would enhance the professional lobbyists. If that is the case, the threat of de-registration would be potent and would ensure that the lobbyists would conform to rules laid down by the Commission.
My Bill would not—I repeat not—impede or alter the ordinary lopbyists' position—that is, any person has a perfect right to seek to present a case to hon. Members. It would not affect a company, co-operative, trade unionist, council tenant or any ordinary individual seeking to lobby Parliament. Indeed, my concern is that an anti-motorway group or tenants' association does not have the influence that can be brought by the big corporations which can afford to hire the services of professional lobbyists. Nobody should be able to buy influence in the House or in the machinery of government.
Why is a register necessary? If the claims of certain lobbyists are true, they are alarming. If false, those who make them are charlatans. In both cases, they need scrutiny so that the public are not in any way deceived.
For example, Lloyd-Hughes Associates claim:
Our success derives from confidence that we can match promises with performance. Notable specific successes have been achieved. Among them, we have saved the international motor car and motor cycle industries based in the United Kingdom millions of pounds by persuading the Government to exempt them, from provisions in the Trade Descriptions Act, severely reduced demands on an American company for back-payments of British excise duties, secured British Government planning permission for an oil platform building site.
It has also, apparently, invoked Royal support for its ventures.
The company continues that it had
helped to organise the opening by Her Majesty The Queen of a major installation.
It masterminded a parliamentary campaign which rescued the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry from Government proposals to nationalise ship repairing as well as shipbuilding, won British Government financial backing for a major development in Turkey and also

claims that it is established as official consultants in the United Kingdom to an overseas Government. It issues comprehensive information service, including the issue of
regular bulletins to a wide audience, and the creation of an all-party Parliamentary group of Members of Parliament and Peers which now has over 40 members.
I understand this is the all-party Namibia group. It has
arranged for business leaders, including the heads of American and French as well as British companies, to have private meetings with eminent personalities in London, including Cabinet Ministers …the Queen's principal private secretary, former British Ambassadors, and men at the very top of the United Kingdom Diplomatic and Home Civil Services 
The introduction continues:
It is our considered policy—unlike some other consultancies—not to name our clients, not because we are not proud of their internationally famous names, but because, like consultant surgeons or solicitors, we prefer to apply an ethic that treats such matters as confidential.
We normally expect to achieve results without any publicity. But, on occasion, even Ministers or senior officials have asked us to help in creating a particular climate of public opinion to enable them the more easily to assist one of our clients whose case they have accepted. In such event, we also advise on the best and most economical way of achieving the desired result.
From its own words, it appears that some Ministers have, in effect, invoked the assistance of lobbyists and, therefore, owe them a favour. If that is true, it is a very dangerous situation.
When I asked the Prime Minister how many meetings with Ministers had been arranged through such lobbyists, I was told that no record was kept. It is time that such a record was instituted. My Bill would require a list of all clients and meetings with Government Ministers and officials to be provided, and would also require a statement of all expenses included in a campaign, through a quarterly report to the Commission.
The Register of Members' Interests does not require the disclosure of fees paid to Members of Parliament acting as parliamentary advisers. If hon. Members act on behalf of lobbyists, fees and expenses would be required to be disclosed. I consider the additional incomes obtained in that way to be unnecesary and demeaning to hon. Members and Parliament.
A parliamentary adviser gives the lobbyists access to the private Dining Rooms of the House which can be booked only by hon. Members. David McDonough and Associates Ltd. issue a brochure explaining the "working lunch concept". It says
Our working lunch concept can be an effective weapon in your corporate communications armoury.
It continues that it will
recommend a suitable place—an hotel, restaurant or club; or perhaps, in appropriate circumstances, the House of Commons.
It is good to know that the House is included in such a list of available hostelries.
Charles Barker, Watney and Powell also boast of providing
the secretariat of several all-party committees.
There is nothing wrong with outside bodies providing secretarial assistance, but where such a body has a commercial reason for doing so, as opposed to a specific public interest, and without any financial gain, the all-party group can potentially be manipulated for the commercial advantage of the professional lobbyist.
Barker, Watney and Powell provided a spuriously authentic form to their brochure by placing on the front cover, in the centre, the official portcullis crest of the


Palace of Westminster—without at any time receiving permission to do so. I am glad to report to the House that that has now been stopped.
The brochures suggest that some of the lobbyists are treading the narrow line which can exist between proper representations put forward with excessive zeal and the subversion of the democratic processes. The pensioners, unemployed and potentially redundant, who come to the House to lobby their Members of Parliament would like to invoke the Queen to their aid or change Government policies by maintaining, to quote Lloyd-Hughes Associates,
regular relationships with the British Government, Cabinet and other Ministers and their Civil Service advisers at all appropriate levels.
Some Ministers have betrayed a marked reluctance to see representatives of the unemployed.
The brochures point emphatically to the need for a register, but there is one more aspect that would be covered by my Bill. In 1976 a Royal Commission was established to examine standards of conduct in public life. The report, production of which cost about £250,000, has never been debated in the House. That is appalling. On page 99 the commission came to the conclusion:
Membership of Parliament is a great honour and carries with it a special duty to maintain the highest standards of probity, and their duty has almost invariably been strictly observed. Nevertheless in view of our report as a whole, and especially in the light of the points set out in the foregoing paragraph, we recommend that Parliament should consider bringing corruption, bribery and attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament acting in his Parliamentary capacity within the ambit of the criminal law. Our recommendation is limited to this single point, and we do not raise any questions about other aspects of Parliamentary privilege and related matters.

That proposal will be included in my Bill to clarify the position beyond any doubt.
My Bill will ensure proper scrutiny and public accountability and will ensure that it can be plainly seen that no professional lobbyist is placed at an advantage over the ordinary citizen in making his or her representation to Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Raymond Ellis, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Christopher Price, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. loan Evans, Mr. Ron Brown, Miss Joan Maynard and Mr. Ernie Ross.

REGISTRATION OF COMMERCIAL LOBBYING INTERESTS

Mr. Bob Cryer accordingly presented a Bill to provide a public register of organisations who carry out the lobbying of Parliament for commercial gain, the disclosure of expenditure by such organisations and for connected purposes:
And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February and to be printed [Bill 60].

Oral Answers to Questions — Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the second Bill providing for Government financial support to the coal industry that we have seen in this Parliament. The first provided for support on the basis of a financial objective of returning to profit on an historic cost basis after interest and social grants from 1983–84 onwards. The House could legitimately wonder why another Bill is needed so soon.
The House and the British public will also want to know the basic purpose behind our continuing commitment of large sums of money to the coal industry and how far the industry has progressed in fulfilling the objectives of its 10-year programme in "Plan for Coal". This debate provides art opportunity, first, to set out the reasoning behind our commitment to the coal industry, and, secondly, to put on the record just how this Government see the future for the coal industry in the light of developments since 1974.
The "Plan for Coal", begun in 1974, was an ambitious 10-year programme for the expansion of the coal industry, to meet an expected growth in demand for energy and coal. The need to diversify our sources of energy supply, to make the optimum use of indigenous resources and to conserve energy, is as clear today as ever. Western leaders recognised that at the Venice summit in 1980. But neither the world, nor the coal industry's own performance, has matched the expectations of 1974; and the coal industry must live in the real world—that is quite plain—adjusting its plans and programmes, and adapting itself to stay competitive in a changing energy scene.
Successive Governments have made available the funds for a massive 10-year programme of investment in the coal industry, totalling £3 billion since 1974. But the "Plan for Coal" assumed, first, steady growth in demand for coal, justifying an output target of 135 million tonnes in 1985; secondly, continually rising oil prices, improving coal's competitive position; thirdly, a 4 per cent. per annum improvement in the coal industry's productivity; and, fourthly, the progressive restructuring of capacity to attain this improvement and regulate overall output. Those were the four key platforms of the "Plan for Coal".
I shall not yield to the temptation to make partisan points—the coal industry's future development and the very large amounts of money involved demand serious and objective analysis. The facts as opposed to the plans are, first, United Kingdom demand for energy and coal has fallen since 1972–73. In 1980–81 total National Coal Board sales were 117.7 million tonnes of coal. Secondly, since 1979 oil prices have not risen as steeply as was feared, while the NCB has not achieved hoped-for cost savings. Thirdly, output per man-shift in 1980–81 was still below its 1972–73 level and has only exceeded that level in recent months. Fourthly, the coal industry is producing more coal than the market wants.
That means that the time scale of change has shifted against the industry, delaying progress to competitiveness

and viability. It means that the taxpayer has continued to commit large sums of money for investment which is only now beginning to show the results which were looked for in improved efficiency. It was therefore right—and inevitable—that the industry and the Government should reappraise the industry's plans and its progress.
I want to analyse a little further the changes that have occurred in the energy market since the Coal Industry Act 1980 was presented to the House, because those changes have had a direct impact on the coal industry.
Recession has been a world-wide phenomenon, and the effect has been felt in reduced demand for energy. Energy demand in the world as a whole outside the Comecon countries was less in 1980 than in 1979. In the United Kingdom, total energy demand fell by 9 per cent. in the period from 1979–80 to the third quarter of 1981. That change in climate affects both short and longer term plans for the industry. My Department's provisional estimate of total United Kingdom energy demand last year—the whole of 1981—is 316 million tonnes of coal equivalent, compared with the 400 million tonnes which was the bottom of the range suggested by the NCB in 1974, when the "Plan for Coal" was being devised. That illustrates the enormity of the change in energy demand in that six-year period.
The National Coal Board, like the rest of our energy market, has felt these effects on demand for coal. Since 1979–80 after a drop of 7.6 million tonnes in 1980–81, total sales of coal are getting back to their 1979–80 level. But these figures mask a setback in the home market, in particular in the crucial industrial market, which fell by nearly a quarter in two years. The board has been able to make good that drop in home sales only by vigorous and enterprising action to increase exports.
In the industrial market, the recession has made manufacturers less ready to switch from oil-fired to coal-fired boilers, hence reducing the number of new customers for coal. It is for that reason that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a pump priming scheme for grants to assist boiler conversion in his spring Budget last year. So far, applications for grants of some £17 million have been received. No doubt, there will be further discussion on this later in the debate. In the electricity coal market, the board has been hit by the general depression in demand for electricity, down 3½ per cent. from a year ago. Despite a cut in oil consumption by the Central Electricity Generating Board of over 30 per cent. this year, coal consumption has also fallen modestly. All these factors have led to the NCB going badly off course in the last two to three years. Domestic sales have fallen, those lost being replaced only by exports which yield a lower net value at pithead, and total turnover has fallen well short of what was expected.
Despite this, all is not gloom, and the men and management deserve our support for their recent achievements, because in terms of productivity the board has kept to the targets set out in the 1979–80 financial strategy. First, output per man-shift has risen from 2.24 in 1978–79, to 2.32 last year and the indications are that it will rise by a further 3½ per cent. this year. That is excellent. Secondly, absenteeism is falling sharply. In 1979–80 it was 17.1 per cent. This was reduced to 12.4 per cent. in 1980–81, and this year it is currently running at around 11 per cent., with absenteeism at a 40-year record


low. Thirdly, output has been rising. In 1978–79 it was 121–5 million tonnes. This year it will be around 124 million tonnes.
This improvement has been made, of course, without adverse effects on the standards of safety. Before saying any more about these, I must say something about last Wednesday's gas ignition at Cardowan colliery. I went to Cardowan myself on Friday and also visited many of the injured in the local hospitals. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that no praise that I give could be too high for the courage of the men whom I met or the heroism shown by all those involved. It is clear that high tribute is due to all concerned in dealing with the incident. The emergency procedures were swiftly and effectively implemented and they stood up to the demanding test. The men and officials underground responded immediately by going to the aid of their colleagues. There is no doubt that the quick actions of the officials and men in the immediate vicinity of the incident was a major factor in the success of the rescue. Others made themselves available for rescue work. Management organised and co-ordinated all the rescue services.
Within minutes of the incident, full-time rescue brigades men were on the scene to go underground and add their expertise. Later they were supported by the part-time safety brigades men normally employed at neighbouring collieries. Because of the skill and courage of the underground rescuers working in very difficult conditions, ably supported by those on the surface, first casualties came out of the pit just over an hour and the last 2½ hours after the ignition. A number of the injured had to be brought from the face to the surface by stretcher. All at the colliery deserve the utmost praise for the speed and efficiency with which all the rescue efforts were brought into operation.
I must also record full praise for the public services. All the necessary services were available when the first casualties arrived at the surface. At the receiving hospitals, the efforts of doctors, nurses and the supporting ancillary staff were vital to the quick relief of suffering. The efforts shown by those who took part directly or indirectly in the events of last Wednesday were in the highest traditions of the mining industry and the public services.
Last week's Cardowan incident, however, must be seen in the context of an improving safety position. When my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment informed the House of it last week, he said that the number of mining fatalities in 1981 was a record low. I can now give the figures. There were 35 fatalities in 1981, compared with 42 in 1980 and 46 in 1979. The previous record low was 40 in 1977. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that 35 deaths is, of course, 35 too many, but I think that the House will agree that progress is being made in this vital area of safety.
Returning to the question of productivity, the recent improvements, however, must be seen against the background of disappointing performance for some years. As I have said before, in 1980–81 output per man shift was still below the level which had been achieved in 1972–73 and only exceeded that level in very recent months. Recent improvement is an achievement, but it must not lead to complacency. The board must ensure that productivity gains are sustained and built upon in the years ahead.
The effect of productivity gains on the board's finances has been more than offset by the sharp drop in sales, and coal stocks are still rising. At the end of March 1979, undistributed stocks were 12.1 million tonnes. At the end of this financial year, they are likely to be nearly 24 million tonnes. This increase in stocks has to be financed, and has resulted in large increases in the board's needs for working capital, with the inevitable effect on the NCB's interest charges, which are likely to be more than £360 million this year.
The factors that I have outlined here had a considerable impact on the NCB's operating position. In its 1979–80 financial strategy, the board had planned to be close to break-even on its mining operations this year, after taking account of social grants. Unfortunately, this has not been achieved, and operating and deficit grants for 1981–82 will be needed to make good a loss of over £4 per tonne. Adjusting the original projections made in 1979–80 for subsequent inflation, it is clear that, while costs are close to planned levels, revenues are well down. This decrease in revenues reflects both the softening of home demand and the lower revenues per tonne achieved from export sales. Thus, although the board has been able to keep its costs in line with its plan and the men and management are to be congratulated on that, it has not been able to reduce them to a level consistent with the revenues that it is receiving.
Overall, these facts make up a worrying picture. Despite commendable efforts to increase efficiency, the coal industry is producing more coal than its customers want, even though it is producing less than the target which it set itself in 1974, and at too high a price. These trends must be reversed if the industry is to achieve its full potential.
I have said a good deal about what has changed since 1974 and, in particular, since 1979–80. One thing that certainly has not changed is the Government's belief that our coal industry can have a secure and prosperous future. Coal is still our greatest single natural resource and our estimates of reserves—equivalent to about three centuries at our current rate of consumption—have not changed. Neither has our long-term analysis of coal's potential changed. We still believe that coal will have a central place in our longer term energy picture and that our coal industry has a good prospect of being able to expand its existing markets and to win new markets on its own commercial merits.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The Minister referred to a diminished domestic market and a lower return on export sales. In view of that, does he intend to adapt the long-term plan to deal with reality?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has anticipated the next part of my speech dealing with the potential of the industry. If he will bear with me, I shall cover that point.
Neither has the Government's commitment to support the coal industry changed. We have undertaken this commitment because we want the industry to succeed and to make its full potential contribution to our economy. The expenditure involved in this commitment is massive. A few illustrations will bring the point home. The total of grants to the NCB this financial year will be some £550 million, 10 times as much as only five years ago, under the Labour Government.
That is the equivalent of a subsidy of about £5 for each tonne of deep-mined coal. Looked at another way, it works


out at a subsidy of £27 from each household. These grants, in turn, make up only half the board's total external financing, which will be more than £1,100 million this year—a massive figure, and the highest for any of our nationalised industries. It is these figures, and the Government's continuing commitment, which, as announced to the House on 16 June, require the Bill.
I believe that it is important—this deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet)—to put on the record why the Government, and in particular why this Government, are willing to commit these massive sums to the coal industry. It is because our belief in coal's bright future is genuine. It is not a belief based on sentiment. In an energy-hungry world, coal's value grows and grows. Unlike nuclear power, which is a one-use fuel—it can be used only for electricity generation—coal is a multi-use fuel. It is the dominant source for electricity generation—some 80 per cent. of Britain's electricity at present comes from coal—and this relative dominance will continue. But coal's potential goes way beyond this: its future lies in its use as fuel for industry, as petrochemical feedstock, as substitute natural gas, and in the longer term, potentially as a source of liquefied petroleum.
In order to realise this potential, and to achieve these new markets, coal must be competitive. That means that it must produce the fuel the customers want at a price they are willing to pay. The new markets—industrial, domestic, foreign— where coal could hope to increase its role are not monopoly markets. To win them, coal must show itself to be more efficient, more reliable and more attractively priced than the other fuels that are competing for these markets. We believe that coal can do it, and that is why the Government are willing to commit this large amount of money.
The coal industry as a whole has shown, most dramatically recently, that it understands that its future depends on coal being efficient, reliable and economic. This is moss: encouraging. But the industry faces many problems, some of which I have already outlined. In addition to the internal challenges to contain costs, increase production and win new markets, the industry faces great uncertainties in terms of economic develop­ments in our own country and in the world at large. The Government feel it right, therefore, to continue to support the industry as it works out its strategies to deal with these problems and uncertainties. The long-term objective remains an independent, self-sufficient coal industry. The Bill, therefore, proposes an increase in the NCB's borrowing powers to give it access to the funds it needs to continue operations and capital investment, and enables the Secretary of State to continue providing deficit grants to support it until the end of 1983–84.
I now turn to the specific provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for an increase in the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board and its wholly owned subsidiaries from the present limit of £4,200 million to a new limit of £4,500 million, which may be increased by order to £5,000 million.
Clause 2 extends the period in respect of which I can pay deficit grant to the National Coal Board until the end of 1983–84. It also increases the total limit on deficit and other operating grants from the present £590 million to £1,000 million, which may be increased by order to £1,750 million. This increase was foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) in his

statement on 16 June last year. The increase is necessary both to cover the increase in grant in respect of the present financial year which he announced, and to provide for continuing support in the next two years.
The second part of the Bill, clauses 3 and 4, deal with social grants. As the House knows, successive Governments have supported and extended the principle of paying social grants to ensure that the inevitable process of change in the industry does not result in hardship for the individuals affected. The 1980 Act, as the House will remember, provided for financial support for a much improved system of allowances to be paid by the NCB to men transferred from one pit to another and for the extension of the redundant mineworkers payment scheme to workers at coking plants. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill reflect the latest improvements.
In March last year, we brought an order before the House, that made substantial improvements in the redundant mineworkers payments scheme for persons made redundant on or after 11 March 1981. In particular, the duration of weekly benefit at a rate equal to about two-thirds of previous pay was extended from three years to five years, and there were substantial increases in the lump sums.
At the same time, the National Coal Board, with the Government's agreement, undertook to fund the cost of allowing all RMPS beneficiaries down to the age of 50 instead of 55 to receive their pensions before the normal retiring age. The board is also prepared to fund the cost of paying pensions calculated on the basis of up to five added years of service. This increased level of pension would continue for life and would be reflected in the other benefits of the pension schemes.
The Government already have powers under section 4 of the Coal Industry Act 1967 to reimburse the board for the full cost of providing pensions to RMPS beneficiaries before the normal retiring age. However, these powers do not cover reimbursement of the cost of payment of pension at an increased level continuing after the normal retiring age. Clause 3 gives the necessary powers in respect of persons who are both eligible for the RMPS and made redundant on or after 11 March when the improved redundancy terms were introduced.
I expect the payments made to finance increased pensions after the normal retiring age to come to perhaps about £3 million or £4 million a year, about half of which could have been reimbursed to the board under existing powers. But it is clearly right that we should be able to reimburse such expenditure by the NCB in full. The system will be an extension of that for the 1967 Act.
Clause 4 also stems from the improvement in redundancy terms. It increases the limits on payments of grants to the board in respect of its "relevant expenditure" under section 6 of the 1977 Act, an on payments under section 7 of the 1977 Act, of which the most important involve the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme. The relatively modest increase reflects the cost of the improved terms, and also the fact that their introduction has led to an upsurge in the level of redundancies over the last year.
The House will note that the period over which payments may be made is not extended by this Bill. This does not mean that there is any intention to terminate payments of social grants under the RMPS in 1984. I have already said that we shall need further legislation before March 1984, and this legislation will include provision for


extension of the social grant and redundancy payments provisions. I made these points in Committee on the 1980 Bill, as those hon. Members who attended the Committee will remember, and they are as true now as they were then.
The House will see that the sums of money involved in this Bill are considerable. They are a clear expression of the Government's commitment to the coal industry and our confidence that it can work out a strategy which will enable it to achieve its full potential contribution to the economy and so win the secure and prosperous future which it deserves. In the last resort, however, this is not something on which any Government can decide. We can encourage, we can support, but it is the industry—and that means all those who work in it—that will decide on its future. The choice before them is what it always was. They can choose an industry that is steadily building up its economic strength, expanding its market, and offering more job opportunities in the future; or they can choose an industry that is dependent on subsidies from the taxpayer, and that is steadily pricing itself out of markets and so condemning itself to stagnation and decline with all that this implies for the futures of those who work in it. Government support can only postpone this choice, as other examples show, both in the public and private sectors. It cannot be avoided altogether.
Happily, there is every sign that the industry has chosen the wiser course. This choice, of course, cannot be made once and for all. It must be carried through into action, and renewed each time the industry comes to a crucial decision. But the Government are confident that the industry will continue to choose the path towards prosperity. We are confident of the eventual success of the efforts of the industry. It is because of this confidence that I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Alex Eadie: The whole House will welcome the Under-Secretary of State's very full speech in introducing the Bill. It gives us, in examining the provisions of the Bill, an opportunity to consider how the Government see the general strategy for the coal industry.
The Minister said that production of coal had increased from 121.5 million tonnes in 1978–79 and this year would reach 124 million. I hope that he will concede that the industry has achieved that with a reduction in manpower. It is important that the House and the country is made aware of that.
Towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentlemen spoke about the miners' choice. I think that I can say on behalf of all my hon. Friends that the miners want a modern technological industry that can produce the goods that the country wants, but they have always argued that the neglect of a decade and a half cannot be remedied in five or six years, and that there must be investment in the industry to achieve the required production at the cost that the Minister suggested.
I should like to illustrate what that means and how we are to pay for the past neglect. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a reference in his brief to Selby, that jewel of the United Kingdom industry. By 1988 or 1989 we hope to have about 10 million tonnes of coal a year from Selby. That necessitates investment today of £2 million to £3 million a week in the project. Investment is the key to providing the industry that the miners and the nation want.
I am glad that the Minister gave a commitment on behalf of the Government to plan for coal production and more investment. We shall want to examine what he said. I hope that the plan will not contain some of the reservations that are sometimes hinted at.
We welcome the provisions to increase the board's borrowing limit from £4,200 million to £4,500 million, with a possible increase to £5,000 million by order. We also welcome the extension of the period during which the Government will pay deficit grant to the board to include 1983–84. The Bill also raises the limit on deficit and operating grants from £590 million to £1,000 million, with a possible increase to £1,750 million by order.
I was tempted to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech to deal with aspects of the Coal Industry Act 1980, but we can return to that. Many people believe that that Act is as dead as the dodo. We shall return to that matter later.
The Under-Secretary was right to say that the Bill deals with massive figures. We shall have to see more of the detail of the new limits on the social grant payments and payments to redundant miners. However, that is a matter for Committee.
The Minister's speech was important, partly because it may relate to the last Bill dealing with our proud coal industry in the present Parliament's lifetime.
I am sure that some of my hon. Friends were puzzled about what constitutes a subsidy. I was alarmed by some of the hon. Gentleman's terminology, which is associated with the Prime Minister. We—particularly those of us in the parliamentary miners group—regard it as highly inaccurate on the question of grants and subsidies to the board. The Prime Minister said on 4 November 1981, in the debate on the Loyal Address:
This year the positive return of the British Gas Corporation is about £400 million. That is more than swallowed up by the subsidy to the National Coal Board of £1,000 million—and that is only one such subsidy to a nationalised industry."—[Official Report. 4 November 1981: Vol. 12, c. 24.]
The whole House knows—everybody bar the Prime Minister seems to know—that that is incorrect. Grants to the board in 1981–82 are likely to be about £570 million. The external financing limit for 1981–82 is £1,117 million. The plain fact is that most of the money in the EFL is required for capital investment. I illustrated that in relation to Selby, where the capital investment for 1981–82 is about £2 million to £3 million per week.
Borrowings for capital investment are made mostly from the national loans fund, and they bear the rate of interest currently charged for new loans. We read in the newspapers this morning that there was indignation throughout the financial world that American interest rates had risen to 16½ per cent. The going rate that the industry and those associated with it must pay is 16½ per cent. Therefore, it is monstrous to describe as a subsidy borrowings which are designed to deal with energy requirements many years ahead and on which interest is charged. It is not appropriate for that even to be hinted at. It is deception not only of hon. Members but of the general public. When the hon. Gentleman spoke of subsidy I wondered whether he was invoking Thatcher's law.
We have had to put the position on the record time and time again, and it must go on the record once more. Britain has the lowest production costs and the lowest level of Government grants among the European Community coal industries. Production costs per tonne, including interest


payments and depreciation, were as follows in 1980: Belgium, £6l; France, £45; and West Germany, £44. In the financial year 1980–81 the comparable figure in Britain was £35.
The other industries receive much larger Government grants. I have the figures for 1979 and 1980, when they were Belgium, £175 million in 1979 and £176 million in 1980; France, £283 million in 1979, £275 million in 1980. I heard an hon. Gentleman shout "West Germany". The figures for West Germany are £1,176 million in 1979 and £1,152 million in 1980; the United Kingdom, £189 million in 1979 and £175 million in 1980. It may please some hon. Gentlemen to know that that has been reduced a bit.
Coming to the price per tonne—and this has to go on the record—in 1980 in Belgium it was £27.8 per tonne, in France £15.2 per tonne, in West Germany £12.2 per tonne and in the United Kingdom £1.4 per tonne. I hope, therefore, that we shall not hear any more of this rubbish about the massive subsidy to the coal industry. We have put it on the record once and for all.
Now let me deal with the rather objective analysis which the hon. Gentleman tried to give and which we shall want to examine in Committee. The Prime Minister is responsible to some extent for creating this confusion. I want to make three points in dealing with the board's present financing structure. For the convenience of the House I put it in this form. The board is financed entirely by loan capital, the only exception being a marginal amount of leasing finance. Secondly, the loan capital comprises, first, funded advances from the national loans fund; secondly, temporary—that is, unfunded—advances from the national loans fund; and, thirdly, overseas loans.
As the Minister and the House are well aware, the Coal Industry Acts require that the board's sterling borrowings shall he from Government sources, except, first, that with the consent of the Secretary of State it may borrow temporarily in sterling from other sources, and, secondly, that with the consent of the Secretary of State and the approval of the Treasury it may borrow in sterling from EEC source
From 1977 to 1978 the repayment arrangements for the new NLF loans were varied and the board was given an option, which it has exercised in full, to take up to 20 per cent. of the new loans required in each year as loans repayable in equal instalments of principal over the ensuing five years. That change, as the Minister knows, followed the White Paper on the nationalised industries, Cmnd. 7131 of March 1978, paragraph 9 of which, in particular, is relevant. The balance of new NLF loans continues to be repayable over 15 years and in both cases the interest cost is fixed at the commencement of the borrowing and the board has no choice but to accept the rates at that time, which then apply throughout the lifetime of the borrowing.
It is unfortunate that during this debate, because of the inaccurate description of the finances of the Coal Board, I have had to spend some time trying to deal with that aspect when there are other important aspects which the hon. Gentleman raised. None is more important than safety. I think that I speak on behalf of my hon. Friends when I refe:- to safety and to the Minister's reference to his visit to the Cardowan colliery. The hon. Gentleman's action was typical of the way in which he has acted since he has occupied his present office. He has always responded to the calls of the mining industry. I endorse, to some extent, what he said and express my own and my

hon. Friends' appreciation of his decision at the weekend to go to Cardowan colliery and visit the injured men in hospital.
I confirm what the Minister said about the discipline of the management and the men. It is the wish of all of us that the men will make a full recovery. I think that the discipline that was shown is something that must be put on the record. As I have said, both the management and the men showed discipline, and the unions were excellent in the sense that they were the leaders at that time of temporary crisis in the colliery. I am pleased that the colliery is still working and that the men are in the bowels of the earth at this time doing their daily chores.
We must emphasise, too, that the rescuers were magnificent. Everybody must admire the speed with which the full-time rescue men raced from the station, how quickly they were underground doing that 2½ mile walk, and how quickly they had the safety stations manned. No praise for them can be too high. I have been asked to say, indeed I want to say, that we appreciate the work of both the full-time and the part-time rescue men.
It would be wrong not to mention also the magnificent part played by the police. Men's lives were at stake, but the police made sure that there was open access to the colliery and to the hospitals. If time was of the essence in some of the cases, the action of the police saved lives. I therefore want it to go on the record that we appreciate the speed with which the nurses, the staff and the rescuers responded. It did credit to the area and to the whole of the mining industry.
The hon. Gentleman gave us safety figures. I have somewhat similar figures before me, and I endorse what he said. Although the safety record is good, that does not mean that we should brook any complacency. Miners everywhere—even while we are here in the House now—are working in a hostile environment, and the only way to get good safety records is by eternal vigilance.
The Minister mentioned productivity in the industry. He gave some heartening figures, because they are encouraging for industry. I cannot recollect whether the Minister gave this figure, but it is a good one to put on the record. In the 43 weeks of 1981–82, despite the appalling weather, productivity has been running at about 3.5 per cent. above that for the previous year. I think that that is also important, because it gives some of the other areas heart to know that 10 of the coal-producing areas are doing better this year than they were doing last year. Scotland is one such area. The productivity figures are an illustration of how investment pays off. That fact must have struck the Minister when he gave the House that information.
I come now to the delay in the Vale of Belvoir project, which is becoming a national scandal. The Minister mentioned investment. We understand how much is involved. I am not exaggerating when I say that it is a national scandal. The NCB has spent more than £2 million on the planning inquiry and consultants' fees. I hope that the House is concerned about the delay.
The board's application was made in August 1978. The project comprises three mines. The public inquiry ended on 2 May 1980. I believe that the inspector's report was submitted shortly before the end of 1980. Since then the board and the local miners have been waiting for the Secretary of State's decision.
I was greatly honoured a fortnight ago to take part in a weekend school in Gateshead. I met Jack Jones, the area


secretary. As well as feeling angry and frustrated, he is wondering what the Government are playing at. The project is similar to that at Selby. It will not be a coal mine; it will be a gold mine for the area. It is time that something happened. I understand why Jack Jones is concerned. A number of collieries in the area will become exhausted in the next 10 years. All the Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire coalfields are expected to be exhausted during that time.
It is vital to provide fresh capacity for the men to transfer to. The greatest asset that this country has is its skilled manpower. In Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire we have highly skilled manpower. It would be a national scandal, to dissipate and fritter it away. With 3 million unemployed it is extraordinary that, because of the Secretary of State's indecision, about 3,000 jobs at the pits and associated with building the mines and securing them once and for all are left hanging in the air.
The Secretary of State for the Environment prides himself on adopting a businesslike approach to planning applications. It is significant that, since the election, Nottinghamshire county council favours the project. We want the Minister to give his decision. We cannot accept that it is a decision for the Department of the Environment. Government is based on collective decisions and responsibility. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will tell us about the Vale of Belvoir.

Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Gentleman is putting one side of the argument. Thousands of people in the Vale of Belvoir are utterly opposed to the project. They have raised substantial sums of money to contest the public inquiry. I am prepared to wait and see what the decision is. The hon. Gentleman should not pretend that the argument is all one way.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman represented the other side when I was a Minister. In a democracy minorities should be respected, but they should not ride roughshod over the majority. The vast majority of people in the area want the project to go ahead. Work and wages are their priority. There are two views, but I believe that I am putting the majority view.

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. We have heard about the great achievements in productivity, the increase in stocks and the great investment. How are we to market the coal?

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman should not write my speech for me, but if I catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, I may be able to satisfy him.
My last point concerns coal liquefaction. In the debate yesterday, after describing what role he believed nuclear power should play in our energy requirements, the Secretary of State said:
It will enable the fossil fuels to be used increasingly as a feedstock for the petrochemical industry."—[Official Report , February 1982; Vol. 17 c. 22.]
Is that statement an incentive to make a decision on the process of extracting oil from coal? The lack of progress is causing concern. The matter was raised last week at the miners' parliamentary group meeting. We may hear echoes of it during the debate.
The history of the matter has been related previously in the life of this Parliament. I signed an agreement with the

National Coal Board in 1978. We agreed to £20 million for two schemes. In our debates on the coal industry in this Parliament we have always been told that Government funding would be no less generous than that of the previous Government. To date that has not been so.
The Government feel that there should be an element of private funding in the scheme. We understand that feeling and do not quarrel with it. However, I regret having to say to the House that the appointment of the new chief scientist to the Department of Energy seems to have contributed to the delay. We resent the fact that his comments on coal liquefaction have been political rather than scientific. That must stop. It damages not only the Department's image but our world-wide prestige in coal technology, where we play a leading part.
We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant) for putting down a parliamentary question on 25 January, but we were angered by the answer. The Under-Secretary of State made it clear that the NCB had been compelled to drop a process because of a lack of funds. The tests are to carry on until the spring. The Minister said:
A three-month proving run…on the board's small-scale integrated plant showed that acceptable catalyst life can be obtained, but certain aspects of the LSE process required further investigation."—[.Official Report, 25 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 236.]
He went on to say that further developments would occur in the spring. We want an assurance from the Minister now that there will be no attempt to sabotage the oil-from-coal schemes, that progress will be made and that the interminable delays will come to an end.
I end as I began. The Bill is important for the industry. The Minister's statement is important. We welcome the funding, but we shall examine other aspects of the Bill in Committee.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: It gives me particular pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the best speech on the coal industry that I have heard since I became a Member of the House in 1964. I have heard a few speeches from both sides of the House on the industry, but my hon. Friend's speech was incomparably the most realistic.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) talked about the need for further investment, the need to liquefy coal and so on. All those matters relate to cost. With oil prices possibly falling in the short term, does it make sense to pour money into liquefying coal? It is not a new process. Practically none of the processes relating to the coal industry is new. The Germans ran their wartime economy on liquefied coal. It is a question whether one does it when the cost is right. At present it is not right.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about going commercial or about pilot schemes? I was dealing with pilot schemes. They are two different matters.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am talking not about pilot schemes but about going commercial with the British coal industry. That is what is desperately needed. Stoke Orchard has been liquefying coal for years in a laboratory experiment.
The hon. Gentleman makes the mistake which is frequently made of assuming that all one has to think of when investing in nationalised industries is pouring in


money. There are people called taxpayers. We have a duty carefully to husband their money. Investment by itself is not enough. That was a point that my hon. Friend made clearly.
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the remarks that he made last night. They were widely reported. Again, they strike a note of realism. It does no service to the people in the coal industry to pretend that all is rosy for them now or in the future. Everyone interested in the industry knows that that is not the case.
The hon. Member for Midlothian said that this may be the last coal borrowing powers Bill before the next General Election. I should like to think so, but, whether it is or not, I wish to take the opportunity to express the great debt which I believe that we all owe to the chairman of the NCB, who may not be in office at the time of the next General Election. Sir Derek Ezra has done a wonderful job in difficult circumstances and over many years. In case we do not have a further opportunity to debate the industry before he leaves in the summer, I wish to record my debt of gratitude to him for all that he has done.
The Bill is part of a continuing story of colossal underpinning of one of Britain's great nationalised industries. It may be that such underpinning should at some point give way to a total restructuring of the industry's finances. Perhaps we should look to a Bill similar to that for the British Steel Corporation, which will not only remove historical debts but provide opportunities for private investment. I do not know that it is sensible financially to run the industry as it has historically been run and in the way proposed in the Bill. I prefer this Bill to the one which we discussed in 1980. I did not hesitate to express my misgivings about the belief that the industry would be able to break even against the tide of a recession.
The industry faces two grave problems. The first is of over-production and the second of poor sales prospects. The hon. Member for Midlothian is an expert on these matters, but he fell into the trap of painting a glittering future for coal. In the longer term it probably has a great future, but will it be the British coal industry? The world is full of coal which does not require deep mining technique to win it. It can be scraped off the surface at a fraction of the cost at which the British industry will ever be able to get it. We should recognise that there is colossal competition. We shall be successful in winning a place for the British coal industry only if we can sell the products so hardly won by those working in it.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman both mentioned the current stock position. By the end of the financial year it will be about 24 million tonnes. Last week in a parliamentary answer my hon. Friend also told me that the cost of stocking coal, as opposed to selling it, is about £6 to £7 per tonne and that there is an additional cost to maintain the stocks, not to mention the payment of interest. If we multiply 24 million by £10, we can see that we are talking about substantial sums merely to keep the coal in stock.
As hon. Members who are experts on the industry will know, when we try to recover the coal from stock we do not get back as much as we put in because of the degradation. mess and so on. We must therefore ask ourselves whether it is sensible to produce coal at that rate when we cannot sell it.

Mr. Skeet: We are also exporting a lot of coal at a loss.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend is right. In commercial jargon, we are almost giving it away, which is tragic. The export opportunities have arisen largely because of the problems that the Polish people sadly are suffering. As I explained earlier, the world is full of cheap coal. To increase our export figures we are having to sell the product at a substantial loss. There was a time, in the 1960s, when we were exporting about 13 million tonnes a year. Now, unfortunately, we are nowhere near that figure even though, as my hon. Friend suggested, we are having to sell coal at such a low price.
These colossal stocks of coal—and we are talking only about coal owned by the NCB and not the distributed stock—are a monument to the wonderful work of the miners and their productivity, and all credit to them, but if this were a private business, no one would stock a product on this scale—coal costs up to £10 a tonne to stock—without some hope of selling.
One of the problems facing us is that the electricity industry, which bums 80 per cent. coal as part of its fuel mix, is facing a grave downturn in its demand. In the first nine months of 1981 the EEC countries saw a downturn in the production of electricity, with the one shining exception of France, which with substantial nuclear and hydro generation showed a substantial increase in its electricity production.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Would he not consider it helpful to both the coal and the electricity industries if industries such as the special steels industry in South Yorkshire could buy its electricity at the same price not only as that of the French steel industry but of the German and Italian as well? They would save several million pounds a year and it would perhaps lead to a higher level of coal consumption.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has raised a relevant point to which I was coming.
One of the reasons why the figures for the sale of electricity are so low is that our costs to customers are so high. With the exception again of the French, we find ourselves at the top of the league. The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the problems of the special steels industry, but I would widen it to the whole of the steel­making industry. I have never failed, and will not do so now, to declare my interest in the industry. I am associated with a company that makes melting electrodes.
The cost differential between producing the product in Sheffield against the cost of a similar plant in Calais is almost 75 per cent. There is no question about that. With respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his last Budget, with some apparent help in solving the problem, was useless for our company, which is spending £4 million a year on electricity. It was able to take advantage of the reductions only on the basis of an interruptible tariff with only 10 to 15 minutes' notice of disconnection. That would destroy not only the product but the machines making the product.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can tell us either today or at some future time why the Government have been unable to tackle the question of proper differentials for industry in electricity charges. Is it that by statute the electricity industry cannot differentiate between customers on continuous supply? It may be that legislation is needed to change that.
It is nonsense to ask the process business to accept reductions in cost on the basis of possibly having the whole supply switched off. I hope that the CBI, and everybody else, is convinced of the unfair competition that British industry is facing from its Continental competitors. Something can be done even if it means changing the law.
The coal industry is relevant to this question because it is the principal supplier of fuel to the CEGB. Surely the NCB and CEGB can sit round the table to see whether something can be done to reduce prices so that the mountains of coal may be reduced. That would also benefit ordinary consumers by reducing the price of their electricity. When there is colossal over-production of coal which cannot be sold but electricity prices are climbing it does not make sense to my constituents or to those of other hon. Members.
The second side of the downturn is the industrial one. I have for a long time been concerned that we need to improve coal sales. After the CEGB, the second biggest market for coal is the domestic market. It used to be the steel industry, but it does not have enough demand at the moment. Industry is unwilling to invest for a number of reasons which I shall examine in a moment. Unfortunately, in spite of the figures given by my hon. Friend, the inducements to convert from oil to coal have been a failure. There may be £17 million worth of orders taken up, but the scheme is still a failure. I have pressed my hon. Friend on several occasions to extend the scheme to include conversion from gas to coal, which would be another leg of the argument.
Perhaps more even important than that, we should try to establish, perhaps through the NCB, what I call an energy package for industry. The first part of that must be about price. I hope that my hon. Friend will take on board that if he has any schemes such as the two I have mentioned—conversion from oil to coal and from gas to coal—he should consider talking to his friends in the National Coal Board to see whether it would be possible to have some form of guaranteed price for the consumer during the period of the repayment for the new boiler plant. Many people are frightened to invest in a new boiler plant when there might be a sudden, terrific price hike which would mean that the sums involved would not be worth looking at. In the first two years, if there were some guarantee of price holding, it would make an attractive package.
Secondly, there has to be a guarantee of availability of supply. Many industrial consumers, particularly the small ones, do not have the land available to stock large supplies of coal. Therefore, my hon. Friend should urge his friends in the NCB or in the distributive trade to make stocking facilities available for businesses so that coal can be readily available when required.
I have another suggestion that my hon. Friend might consider—the wider use of containers for the movement of coal. That does not merely mean the small containers of 20 tonnes of steam coal in a steel container. I am thinking of a container which can be loaded with coal, latched on to the factory wall and used as a bunker from which coal can be taken for use in the plant, with another container further down the wall taking away the ash. That would help in one of the major problems for coal-fired plant, the mess and the difficulties of handling.
There should be further containerisation and new means of containerisation to see whether sales of coal can be made to the ordinary, small businesses such as the greenhouse operators in my constituency. There has been some container work done by the NCB in the past—to Ireland, for example—but it needs to be dome on a more dramatic and innovative scale, with containers as the in situ bunker and to take away the ash.
Could my hon. Friend tell us what has happened to the DOE inquiry about chimneys for houses? Almost since I can remember—and I have been in the House since 1961 we have been asking about building regulations which insist that local authority houses should have a chimney. If the DOE is still sitting upon the report, it is time that it was made public to see what the view is.
My third point is difficult but important. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Midlothian talked about the tragedy of the Cardowan colliery. As we know, that colliery had been earmarked for early closure. I do not want to rake up the ashes of the closure programme, but it is important to realise that the future of this industry depends on the work force working in the best conditions available. That means mining standing up rather than lying on one's side in water. We must therefore, be realistic in the interests of the people in the industry, and we should ensure that those conditions are fulfilled as soon as possible. Perhaps my hon. Friend will say something about closures and new coal faces when he replies.
What progress is being made on underground gasification? Although I may quarrel with the hon. Member for Midlothian over liquefaction, I ultimately want to see an industry in which people do not have to go underground and burrow about like moles. We should be able to get the calories out of the coal without digging it out, and I know that some work is proceeding on this.
In the mid-1960s, Lord Robens told us that a coal industry producing less than 200 million tonnes a year was doomed to a bleak future. Sadly, we are already far below that figure. I am not certain whether it would have been wise to have tied the industry to any sales target figure. We must free the industry and give it a chance to do the best that it can.
The points that I have raised are not meant to be carping or to denigrate those working in the industry. On the contrary, we should be realistic about the industry and realise that it faces a grave problem in the short and medium terms. By disguising the truth, we are doing a disservice to those in the industry. That is why I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate.

Mr. Jack Dormand: I am tempted to devote the whole of my speech to answering the points made by the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), but in the first instance I shall confine myself to what he said about stocks. Later, I shall refer to his remarks about coal liquefaction.
There is not the slighest doubt that the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument about stocks is that we ought to be closing pits. That is a non-starter at present for a number of reasons, not least because Conservative Members almost daily refer to an upturn in the economy. Surely it is better to be prepared, and that should be taken into account, especially in a coal-consuming economy such as


ours. Nor should we forget the export markets that are now opening up. 1: am glad that the Minister referred to those and complimented the NCB.
The very nature of the coal industry means that we simply cannot close pits. Another factor is unemployment. Indeed, that is perhaps the essential difference between Labour and Conservative Members. We adopt a Socialist approach. We say not that the economic factor is unimportant, rather that it is not the most important.
The most important thing that can be said about the Bill is that, unlike many of their other policies, the Government are facing reality. We well remember the measure introduced two years ago. Indeed, the Minister introduced it with the usual bright-eyed boyish enthusiasm that we have come to respect so much. That required the NCB to break even by 1983–84 without any subsidy.
At the time, the Under-Secretary said:
The task will be demanding, but I am confident that the industry can achieve it".
We said that would not be possible and argued that the Government were living in cloud cuckoo land. Last year's events proved that we were right, and futher proof is contained in the Bill.
In view of the remarks so far made by Conservative Members, I am still concerned about the Government's attitude towards competitiveness in the coal industry. We all agree that this industry, like all others, should be efficient, but are the NCB and the miners supposed to compete with the open-cast production of Australia, the United States and South Africa where, for obvious reasons, a tonne of coal cost as little as £3 to £4 to produce? The cost of producing a tonne of coal in Britain is about £35. Britain is considered to have one of the most efficient coal industries in the world, but we cannot begin to compete with such low-cost production. That fact must be recognised.
I presume the hon. Member for New Forest would not argue that, because of that kind of competition, we ought to close our pits and rely on wholesale imports. That would be the craziest act any Government could undertake, particularly in an island such as ours with such large coal reserves.
I shall not repeat the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) about subsidies in the EEC. They were given to me in answer to a parliamentary question. I do not disguise the fact that they are not a straight comparison, because they include social costs and so on. It is fairly obvious that there is such a huge discrepancy between the subsidies given in Britain and those given in the four EEC countries mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian that other EEC countries do receive much greater help than the British coal industry. That important point must be borne in mind whenever Conservative Members talk in parrot-like fashion about the need to be competitive.

Mr. Skeet: I agree that it is impossible to compete with Australia where there is much open-cast production. If the NCB is trying to be competitive, and if output per man-shift is below 1.5 tonnes, or even 1 tonne, does the hon. Gentleman agree that closure would be right on the basis that such a pit would not be economic?

Mr. Dorrnand: I do not agree at all, and I shall develop that point later. In fact, I have touched on it in reply to the hon. Member for New Forest.
It is incumbent on the Government to do everything possible to encourage the greater use of coal. We welcome the initiative taken last year by the Chancellor, who provided £50 million for certain types of firms changing from oil-fired to coal-fired boilers. I think I am right in saying that £17 million is now being allocated. That is important, because the amount allocated by the Chancellor in his Budget was £50 million, and that was almost a year ago. That is an important feature, which we welcomed at the time. However, the Government have much more to do.
When the Minister last spoke in such a debate, he said that 1,000 inquiries had been received. Presumably, more inquiries have now been received. The real question, however, is: how many have been taken up? It would be interesting to have that figure either now, or at the end of the debate. I suspect that fewer firms than expected have changed to coal-fired boilers. I reiterate what I have told the Minister before—that the scheme is much too restrictive. It should be widened to include any company, local authority, or organisation that wants to convert to coal. That is certainly not the case now. In addition, the date should be extended beyond March 1983.
The Government should do much more to publicise the scheme. At the same time, they should increase the 25 per cent. grant now available. I do not need to tell the Minister that many firms, both large and small, are having difficulty—particularly in these days of financial stringency—in finding the other 75 per cent. of the cost. The way that the Government handle this scheme will be seen as a test of their seriousness in wanting to help the coal industry through encouraging the greater use of coal.
Clause 4 sets a new limit of £200 million for grants in connection with pit closures under section 6 of the Coal Industry Act 1977. The Minister does not need me to remind him that the miners' greatest worry is the threat to close their pits. The miners will be suspicious about the increase in grants for pit closures for two reasons. First, they have good reason to distrust Tory Governments. The record shows that the Conservative Party does not go out of its way to preserve pits. The most recent example was in February 1981 when there was a so-called hit list of 20 pits which would have been closed had it not been for the determined opposition of the miners at that time.
Secondly, there are sometimes genuine misjudgments about the closure of pits, despite the technical knowledge of mining engineers, managers, and so on. In my constituency, a pit that I know well was scheduled for closure. It was kept open because of the opposition of some miners, and two years later it broke its own production record twice. Many people at that time thought that the decision to close that pit was correct. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House can quote similar examples from their constituencies.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Miners do not want pits to close, yet we accept that some pits, such as Leicester, must be closed. The biggest worry is that the miners in those pits will not have the satisfaction of working in efficient collieries unless the Vale of Belvoir bears fruit. Is that not vital for the miners in that area and for Britain if we are to have an efficient mining industry?

Mr. Dormand: My hon. Friend has made an important point. He has spent a lifetime in the pits, and he could not


have expressed himself more eloquently or more forcefully. I hope that the Minister will take notice of what he said.
Pits should not be closed on economic grounds. The hon. Member for New Forest referred, in rather disparaging terms, to the golden age of coal. However that age, which is mentioned in so many forecasts, has yet to come. In my view, it would be crazy to reduce our coal producing capacity on those grounds alone.
I hope that the Government have taken note of the report published by the CEPCEO, the association of coal producers in the EEC. It states that western Europe cannot allow itself to remain under the serious threat of an energy shortage which would place its economic well-being gravely at risk. Some of us are not that enthusiastic about our membership of the EEC. However, Britain is a member and we must consider such important points. The report's advice is that the Community should free itself from that danger by ensuring the institution of a new coal economy.
That view reinforces the decisions made at the Venice conference, to which the Government are committed. Therefore, I hope that there will be no equivocation. Pit closures would have a disastrous effect on unemployment in all coal mining areas, including mine. With unemployment in Easington at 17 per cent., and even higher in some surrounding areas, the Government and the National Coal Board should not even begin to think of closures while there is still coal to be mined.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me return to the subject of coal liquefaction. I disagree strongly with the remarks made by the hon. Member for New Forest. I frequently refer to this point in the House and in correspondence. I have accused the Government of being pusillanimous and, in view of the lack of specific reference to it in the Bill, I repeat that accusation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said, the Government were slow to provide finances for the Point of Ayr project. I wonder whether they would have done anything, if there had not been pressure from several quarters. Their financial contribution is far too small for such an important project. On 27 July 1981 we discussed the draft Coal Industry (Limit on Grants) Order. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy referred to the Point of Ayr scheme, and said:
In all areas of government we want more taxpayers' money to be spent, but taxpayers' money is a rare resource. Let us see what progress is made."—[Official Report,27 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 955.]
All hon. Members say "Alleluia" to that. However, we often hear that the Government pride themselves on entrepreneurial initiative and backing the so-called "sunrise" industries. The conversion of coal to oil is now a proven process. The programme has been criticised, but nothing has been said about South Africa, where commercial production has been maintained for many years. Therefore, the process is known. We need not the caution continually shown by the Government, but push and drive. Coal liquefaction is a winner, and Britain, with its vast resources of coal and expertise, could be the world leader. I implore the Minister and the Government to take it much more seriously.
I must draw attention to a glaring omission in the Bill. It is astonishing that no reference is made to any action to

be taken on a major report issued as long ago as July 1981. I refer to the Flowers report—"Coal and the Environment". Without doubt it is the most comprehen­sive and important report of its type to have been issued. Even at £23 net, the Government should consider it seriously. When the coal industry is debated, the economics of production take the centre of the stage. That is of great importance. However, people often forget that those of us who live in mining areas suffer some inconvenience because of the very nature of the industry. There are pit heaps, and dirt and dust resulting from the transport of coal. Incidentally, I was interested to hear the suggestion about containers; it is a matter to which the Government should give some attention. Unfortunately, at present there are huge stocks of coal defacing the landscape. Coal mines, with all their pithead gear and equipment, are not the prettiest of sights.
Much has been done, of course, to improve the situation. I frequently pay tribute to the excellent reclamation work that is done in my area by the Easington district council and the Durham county council. I hope that there will be no cutting back on that expenditure. I realise that it is a matter for the Department of the Environment, but I hope that the Energy Ministers will make their views felt. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary indicate his agreement. This is an important matter for coal mining areas. If a cut in that expenditure is being considered, I hope that there will be second thoughts about it.
I draw particular attention to a constituency problem which is mentioned in the report. For years, some of the magnificent beaches in the North-East have been desecrated by the tipping of colliery waste into the sea. In 1974, the Labour Government decided that tipping should cease and that the beaches should be reclaimed. A working party was established to consider how that could be achieved. It recommended the use of pipelines to deposit waste out at sea. So far, half of one pipeline has been constructed. Do right hon. and hon. Members wonder why half a pipeline? It is because the Government, the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment refuse to give a penny to complete it. I am sure that it is a long time since the House heard such nonsense. I realise that the prime responsibility is with the Department of the Environment, which is now dealing with the matter, but neither I nor my constituents understand the bureaucracy which prevents the Department of Energy from making a contribution to the work. It is a ludicrous situation. I hope that the Under-Secretary will confer with his opposite number at the Department of the Environment to see whether any money is available to complete what is, after all, only one pipeline—although at least three have been proposed.
The Bill involves the authorisation of millions of pounds. The sum that is required to clean our beaches is trivial in comparison. I urge the Government to give priority to the Flowers report, which recommends:
We support attempts to bring beach tipping to an end and restore the areas concerned.
The people in the areas concerned are entitled to that consideration.
I end by paying tribute again to our miners. Even Conservative Members have been magnanimous enough to compliment them. I am proud to be the son of a miner and the brother of miners. Miners, in an arduous and dangerous occupation, welcome the figures that the Minister gave at the beginning of his speech about the


reduction in the number of deaths in the mines. We should remember, although the Under-Secretary did not say so, that the number of seriously injured miners was 512 in the year in question. That figure cannot be lightly dismissed. Miners have played a full part in contributing to the progress of our country. I remind the House of "Plan for Coal", which has been mentioned several times in the debate. It was agreed in 1974, and the miners continue to fulfil their part of the bargain. It is up to the Government not to let them down.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I welcome the Bill, as I am sure do all contributors to the debate, as evidence of the Government's commitment to the coal industry. Of course, there is not much choice. Our vast coal reserves are about the only national asset that we have not yet squandered. Indeed, it would be difficult to do so over the coming period. Moreover, it is about the only advantage that we have over all our competitors that no one can take away from us.
With less equivocation, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in whom the coal industry at all levels has the most extraordinary trust—as have both sides of the House. I welcome the tone of his speech, which was broader and more forward-looking than the speeches that we usually hear from Ministers at his Department. I want to make it plain that I exclude him from what, from now on, will be a highly critical speech.
Before I embark on my criticisms I wish to make it plain that I am not criticising Government policy about the oil from coal pilot plant at the Point of Ayr. I am watching it like a hawk. If there is any evidence that the project may fail because or insufficient Government support, I shall be swift to say so. However, for the time being I am satisfied that it is a proper scheme to be financed mainly by private capital. I am satisfied that the Government are giving such support as is necessary to prime the pump of private capital investment. I see no reason whatever to suppose that these pilot plants will not be constructed in due date and carry out their functions. Whether we should then move to the commercial exploitation process is another matter and one which will enter into the main body of the argument that I am about to deploy.
My charge against the Department of Energy—a charge which I have already levelled at the Department in an Adjournement debate on 18 January—is that under successive Governmens it has had what I regard as a damaging obsession with short-term and narrow interests. I find it extraordinary that members of a Government who rightly advocate collective Western defence against Sovict pressure should apparently feel no absurdity in talking in purely British terms about the need, on strategic grounds, to maintain a British coal industry. I cannot imagine a Secretary of State for Defence—certainly a Conservative Secretary of State for Defence—coming to the House and saying "I am pleased to say that we have a defence policy which will stop the Russians dead in their tracks on a line from Calais to Antwerp". However, that seems to be the policy of the Department of Energy.
It is a terrifying fact that the rest of Western Europe is becoming increasingly dependent for its energy resources on supplies from outside free Europe, and in particular from the Soviet Union and Algeria. That dependence is seen most dramatically and most alarmingly in the so-called Yamal agreement between the Soviet Union and the

German gas companies to build a pipeline which, when it is operational, will supply the Federal Republic of Germany with one-third of its total gas needs and the EEC as a whole with one-fifth of its total gas needs.
Supplies by pipeline are especially vulnerable to pressure from suppliers, as the Italians have found to their cost. They built a 2,500 km pipeline to get what they fondly hoped would be cheap natural gas from Algeria. Having committed themselves to that source of supply, the Algerians have pushed up the price of gas to parity with oil, and the Italians are faced with the choice of writing off their investment or having to buy gas at a price that is well above its real value.
That amount of dependence means that the Soviet Union alone, or worse still, the Soviet Union and Algeria acting in concert—frankly, it does not need much imagination to envisage circumstances in which the Soviet Union and Algeria might get together to put pressure on Europe—could exert almost irresistible pressure on Western Europe simply by turning off a tap.
Dr. Nigel Lucas, in an article in Coal and Energy Quarterly, said:
There are asymmetrics in the balance of powers between East and West. In conventional military power the USSR. predominates, possibly in nuclear capacity also; the only clear advantage of the West is the greater economic dependence of the East; this dependence permits the West to contemplate economic sanctions as a political measure, as in the case of Afghanistan. The force of this threat will be weakened if the USSR can retaliate with almost instantaneous effect. One should also not overlook the possibility that Soviet and OPEC political interests may lead them simultaneously to intervene in the supply of energy to Western Europe.
The United Kingdom should be helping to reduce Western Europe's dependence on such chancy supplies, not just by making or promising to make our jealously guarded national resources available to any of our allies. I recognise that the Department of Energy has carried out all its international commitments in the narrow sphere, but we can help by exploiting resources and developing techniques that are not justified on purely economic or purely British strategic grounds.
When I say that we should consider the British coal industry as a basic strategic reserve not just for the United Kingdom but for Western Europe as a whole, I do not mean that we should regard our huge underground reserves as reserves for the security of Europe. Nor do I mean that we should regard our reserves of opencast coal is that light. However, considered in that perspective, we should be thinking of opencast coal not as a means of reducing the overall costs of the National Coal Board and thus the price of coal for the domestic consumer, but as an instantly accessible strategic reserve for use in emergencies as a vast underground storage scheme.
It is important to realise that Britain's highly skilled miners and mining engineers—perhaps the most highly skilled and the most devoted in Europe—are every bit a; much a part of Europe's first line of defence as a man in uniform. I do not draw any lessons about the threat to national security from strikes or the possibility of depriving miners of the right to strike by treating them as Service men.
When calculations are made about whether one should open a new pit, such as the proposed vast new pit at Margam in South Wales, to modernise existing pits, to embark on new processes such as the proposal to extract oil from coal at the Point of Ayr, or the subsequent commercial exploitation of that process or


whether—taking us into larger fields—we should lay a spinal pipeline in the North Sea to connect the Norwegian gas fields via the United Kingdom with the Continent and also encourage the exploration for gas much further north than at present, there should be built into them a factor for the defence needs of Western Europe.
Apart from a general energy shortage, Europe has, and will have for a long time, more and more shortages of certain fuels at certain times. Therefore, we must develop conversion and transmission facilities. We must be able to convert coal into oil and to transmit gas, whether natural or derived from coal, in large volume, cheaply and reliably from one part of Western Europe to another. Those needs, which are every bit as real and urgent as the need for ammunition and weapons, are not only not being met at present, but are not being assessed.
I quote Dr. Lucas again
Unfortunately there is no real means at present by which the value of security is transmitted into fuel planning. SNG development is still largely seen as dependent on the product being cheaper than natural gas in a straightforward comparison. The true appraisal should include the probable frequency and duration of interruptions in various sources of supply and their resulting cost. Preliminary work at Imperial College suggests that if the economic consequences of security are built into fuel planning, then the effects on the volume and timing of investment in coal conversion can be large.
The case has not been studied in anywhere near sufficient detail. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will tell me whether any consideration is being given to those factors within the Department and whether he considers that at least a research section of his Department should be charged with constantly monitoring the need and feeding the input into every decision made by his Department.
This debate is not one to approve the Government's energy policy. If it were, I would have difficulty in supporting the Government, although I could not oppose them if it involved voting in the same Lobby as the Labour Party on the issue. The Labour Party, as I have discovered on previous occasions, completely supports the Government in their determination to put short-term, national economic interests first and to ignore long-term, European strategic interests. If my criticisms fail to shake the self-satisfaction of the Department of Energy, I do not suppose that it will be shaken by the total and uncritical support of the Labour Party, which is as keen to strip Britain of its defences as it is to wreck our chances of economic recovery, merely to win the applause and the votes of narrow-minded and short-sighted nationalism. We must take a much wider, longer and more international view of the problem.

Mr.A.J.Beith: I shall not go far down the avenues explored by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), save to say that the Government must embrace in their energy planning a much closer co-ordination with our European partners. It would be quite wrong however, if in that co-ordination they neglected the proper use that Britain must make of the resources that have been won by the efforts of British miners or that lie close to our shores and have been won by British enterprise in the North Sea.
In this debate we are considering large sums of money. In the main, they are not subsidies but borrowing powers,

as the hon. Membercontribution>ember for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) pointed out, although there are also some subsidies. Yesterday we discussed even bigger sums of £1 billion to £1.5 billion a year for nuclear power stations. Nuclear energy investment involves much larger sums than this Bill. What the Bill does is to bring about that level of investment in the coal which the Government themselves recognise is necessary if that industry is to make the contribution it needs to make to our future energy policy. By the very nature of the industry, if we allow existing pits to be closed, they are lost permanently and we lose part of the opportunity of winning deep-mined coal which we need as an element in our future energy policy.
I do not believe that we can move from deep-mined coal wholly into opencast coal. If we did that, the destruction of our environment would be catastrophic. Environmental pressures will also begin to play a part in some of the other countries where cheap opencasting of coal is now proving relatively easy and enables coal to be put on to the market at low prices. No part of the world can ignore indefinitely some of the environmental problems associated with what is, on the face of it, a cheaper method of winning coal. Opencast mining has a contribution to make, but it may be more limited than has been recognised.

Mr. John Moore: Despite the lack of environmental protection in some instances and the additional costs that some nations do not add to their coal, it is important to take thermal equivalent values into account. Wyoming produces the cheapest possible opencast coal in the United States, but when the cost of transporting that coal to an inland power station in Britain is considered, it would be more expensive in thermal equivalent terms than our deep-mined coal. The average cost of production is an important fact to add to the debate, although I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Beith: I am glad that the Minister has made some cost calculations and that he realises some of the problems that will arise if we make ourselves dependent on overseas opencast coal supplies.
The debate is also taking place in the context of the recent vote by members of the National Union of Mineworkers. That vote was a further reminder that the NUM is a democratically run union, which in many respects leads the way and can show an example to many other trade unions. Miners acted responsibly in the way they voted because they believed that it was more important to secure the future of their industry than to secure a short-term wage increase for which they might pay a high price in lost jobs.
What happened there underlines my view, and the view of Liberals generally, that the more responsibility is given to people for the decisions that face their industries, the more likely they are to behave responsibly. The more closely those who work in industries are associated with the fundamental decisions that their industries have to take, the more likely it is that responsible views will prevail. Through the machinery of the NUM's ballot its members had that opportunity and, in my view, they used it wisely.
Coal must have an important future. As the Minister said, oil will have to be concentrated on the uses for which it is difficult to replace, especially petrochemical uses, and not for heating or electricity generation. Whatever may happen in the short term, its price is bound to rise and its availability be restricted in the future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) argued yesterday, nuclear power will turn out to be more costly than was first expected. After all, that is what has happened at Invergordon, where the expected bonanza of a cheap electricity supply from nuclear power to sustain the aluminium smelter has not materialised. We shall have problems in future with the cost of nuclear power. We have seen the delays that can arise in bringing nuclear power stations into the system and having them perform effectively.
Our views on the problems of nuclear power mean that Liberals are committed to having available coal resources play a major part in our energy policy. It is important to see the Bill as part of an energy policy and not as merely a means of buying our way temporarily out of trouble and staving off some of the immediate problems. If it is to be part of our energy policy, it must be part of a package in which there are other important elements.
Energy pricing for industry must be examined more carefully if our industries are to prosper and if the industries in the chain of coal, electricity production and steel making are to make their contributions. More attention must also be given to combined heat and power schemes so that we can make better use of the fuels that we now use solely in electricity generation. All this must be part of a more coherent energy policy than the country felt it necessary to adopt in earlier years.
In my constituency I see the industry going through the difficulties of modernising. We have lost 450 jobs in a small group of communities through the merger of Shilbottle and Whittle collieries. Most people will agree that the merger was necessary in order to ensure that we have a viable and economic pit in the area. I was rather aggrieved when some Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), thought it necessary to attack the National Coal Board for its system of payments to miners who were involved in merger schemes such as the one for Shilbottle and Whittle. The NCB rightly agreed that scheme with the union as a basis for ensuring that trained men were kept in the industry. The men at the Shilbottle colliery have had years of experience in handfilling in low seams and should not be lost to the industry at this stage. The NCB is right to insist, as the NUM will, that that national agreement should be maintained.
It is time that job losses in my constituency were offset by some promise for the future and some real prospects that the considerable coal reserves on the Northumberland coast can be exploited in future. It is increasingly clear from the NCB's surveys and from general knowledge that there are extensive resources of coal under the sea at Amble and the area of the coast immediately north of it. There is already considerable exploitation of the coal reserves under the sea to the south of Amble. Ellington and Lynemouth collieries have impressive production records. I wish to see some sign that the Government are prepared to encourage the development of the reserves under the sea to the north by means of a new pit sunk near Amble. It may be that an alternative approach has to be taken, but I should prefer to see a new pit. I should like to see a programme of investment for the future.
On the other hand, we do not wish to see the approach that was taken recently when a private concern indicated that it wanted to dredge coal from the bay outside Alnmouth. That would be a short-sighted way to get at a limited part of the coal reserves which are available under

the North Sea and it would involve serious environmental problems. It would be very damaging to a beautiful area of coastline and would destroy the fishing industry along that section of coast. Therefore, I hope that that type of short-term grabbing of coal without regard to environmental considerations will not be the method by which we approach the problem. The scheme has not made any progress so far.
Furthermore, we do not wish to see this area of the North East of England, which has so much to contribute to the future of coal, become a centre for nuclear power generation. It would be particularly inappropriate to go ahead with the Druridge Bay nuclear power station proposal, involving a green field site in an area of particular coastal beauty, instead of developing existing coal-fired power stations that are within reach of the coalfield and which have the added advantages of being close enough to urban communities to make heat and power developments and district heating schemes worth while. As I said in an intervention yesterday, one of the disadvantages of the green field site nuclear power station is that it cannot be used for district heating because it is too far from the community for that to be useful. However, power stations such as Blyth can be developed and made the basis for district heating schemes.
Therefore, examining the matter from the point of view of my own area with its special problems, and from that of the development of a sensible energy policy, I see the coal industry having an important future. The Bill should be part of a strategy to ensure that we prepare for that.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Like most hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. I welcome it as a measure of support for one of our great nationalised industries. However, I suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy that it envisages a cautious short-term expansion and falls a little short of the longer-term view for which the industry asks and which it deserves.
Most hon. Members were delighted by the restraint and moderation shown by the majority of members of the National Union of Mineworkers in rejecting their president-elect's call for a strike against the Government. Miners are not basically in the business of striking against anybody; but they are in the business of ensuring that they get a fair reward for their labours and just recognition of the fact that they do an essential, dirty, dangerous and necessary job.
Many people who go down a coal mine for the first time come up saying "I am sure, having seen that, that the miners deserve every penny they get". Few would challenge that, but few would agree that it necessarily follows that everyone in the industry should get the same increase, when one is awarded, or the same productivity bonus as the men working down the pit. When we talk of proper increases for the miners, is it necessary also to talk of similar increases for the clerks, typists and office boys, whose connection with the miners' dangerous.lob is minimal? If the coal industry could solve that anomaly, it would carry public opinion along with it more than it does now.
I have the honour to represent a constituency containing six pits. I represent more pits and mining villages than any other Conservative Member. Indeed, I speak for more pits


than many Labour Members who are traditionally thought of as representing miners. Therefore, I have an interest in a thriving and expanding mining industry.
The Bill makes financial arrangements for pit closures. It is generally agreed that many pits are almost worked out. I refer particularly to the north-east Leicestershire coalfield. Those working in the industry in that area are entitled to know about its future—particularly the possible expansion of the Vale of Belvoir coalfield. I am not arguing for or against the development of that coalfield, but we ought to know exactly what the chairman of the inquiry recommends and we should have an early statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment of his conclusions on the report of that inquiry.
The industry has shown over the years that man-management relations at pit level are the finest in any of Britain's industries. The managers talk the same language as the workers, usually having been trained and started their working lives at the coalface. That has been of benefit to the industry.
If other nationalised industries had the same good labour relations as have traditionally existed in the mining industry, we would not have had to spend so much public money over the years to prop up inefficient nationalised industries. The miners' dedication and responsibility were shown in the recent ballot. An hon. Member referred to the generally democratic method by which their decisions are reached. The industry demands a similar commitment to a long-term view from the Government, and that is what I ask for.
We know that "Plan for Coal" was instigated in 1974—eight years ago. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is time for a new "Plan for Coal" and that it is his duty and ours to establish it.
The threat of anarchy within the industry has now been removed, as has the threat to the industry's immediate profitability. Therefore, we ought to know where coal will fit into the long-term scheme of our national resources. There need be no conflict with the nuclear lobby, since the nuclear industry can only produce electricity, as my hon. Friend made clear in his opening remarks.
We shall need coal so long as our oil remains finite, as it now is. Therefore, I welcome the expansion of the nuclear industry just as I welcome the expansion of the coal industry. As the Minister said, coal can do things that the nuclear industry cannot do, because coal is a fossil fuel. At the moment, it is dirty, difficult and costly to produce, but we have reserves for 300 years or more. If we can get the coal that we know is under the North Sea, we shall have sufficient for getting on for a thousand years. It is an enormous asset. If we plan our coal industry correctly, we shall get it cheaply, cleanly, safely and profitably.

Mr. Dormand: The hon. Gentleman said that there are six pits in his constituency. I hope that he is not deliberately avoiding the crucial point of his main argument. Is he prepared to tell the miners at his six pits that, for the forseeable future, they ought to be kept open, even though making a loss?

Mr. Alexander: I am not prepared to do that, because the pits in my constituency are highly profitable. The miners would tell me and the hon. Member for Easington

(Mr. Dormand)that the pits in other areas, where productivity records are not one quarter as good as theirs, ought to be closed. The hon. Gentleman would not find a great deal of support from my constituents in the mining industry.
I plead with my hon. Friend to plan a little beyond 1983–84. If we plan the Belvoir coalfield properly, the environmental problems will be minimal.
Anyone who has visited Selby knows that, when it was started, many people were concerned about the possible desecration of an area of north Yorkshire. Having seen it, I am not entirely happy that it was an area of great beauty anyway, but I have been extremely impressed by the attractiveness of Selby and the work done there deliberately to deal with the environmental aspect. All credit to those who did that.

Mr. Skeet: I confirm my hon. Friend's remarks about the attractiveness of Selby, but there is no spoil to be taken from it. Belvoir is rather different. Where would my hon. Friend place the spoil to be taken away from the Vale of Belvoir?

Mr. Alexander: I accept my hon. Friend's argument. We look forward to the inquiry's report on that aspect to see how it proposes to deal with it. The report will help Conservative Members to decide whether to support development there or not. That is a major factor.
I ask my right hon. Friend to plan the financial aspects of the industry a little further ahead than is being done now. I ask him to take a more businesslike attitude towards the industry.
Some NCB areas believe that they could raise capital on the open market, service it and keep it growing out of their expansion and resulting profitability. One area director suggested to me—I shall not reveal who it was as I do not have his authority to do so—that if he were allowed to borrow £100 million on the open market, he could expand faster and more profitably than under the present financial arrangements from the Treasury. Think of the job opportunities that would be brought to one area if the director were allowed to raise that amount of capital. The prospect is exciting.
The area director went further than making that suggestion to a Back-Bencher. He went through the correct channels to the Treasury. It said that he could borrow the money, but that it would come off his permitted borrowing limit. That is a short-sighted attitude towards trying to get some of the business ethic into one of our great nationalised industries.

Mr. Beith: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has been more successful than any of the rest of us in trying to persuade the Government to explain why investment in British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. raised in the private sector does not count against the public sector borrowing requirement, whereas that in the coal industry does.

Mr. Alexander: That aspect is beyond the argument that I am making, but the point is equally valid.

Mr. George Grant: The hon. Gentleman referred to an area borrowing money on the open market. I should like to couple that remark with his earlier statement about miners in his constituency and what they think about pit closures. It has been recently proved by the National Union of Mineworkers that that is not the attitude. Only last February when the National Coal Board


asked for a reduction of 10 per cent. in operating pits, the Government and the NCB had to change their views. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, there are assets throughout the country. The Government and the National Coal Board cannot look for the cream in one area and ignore other areas. There are more important considerations than just looking for the cream. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) said that miners in his area were concerned only about their future and that they were in favour of closing uneconomic pits and those that were the worst performers. I do not believe it.

Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman must make his own argument. I assure him that miners in my constituency are proud of their productivity. They do not see the same objections to closing unprofitable pits as the hon. Gentleman. His argument was not particularly relevant to the point that I was making.
I shall quote the example of 100 business men wanting to raise £10,000 on the open market to service or expand their industries. They would get Government encouragement and, in many instances, grants and incentives. However, one of our greatest nationalised industries asked for the opportunity to expand in the normal business way, but the Treasury said that it could not do so. I ask for a more enlightened attitude towards the finances of the mining industry.
My plea to my hon. Friend throughout my remarks has been that there should be a longer-sighted commitment towards the industry than the Bill contemplates and a new "Plan for Coal" for the latter part of the century invoking the Departments of Energy and Industry and, above all, the Treasury. We have a unique opportunity. We are now self-sufficient in energy. We have a thriving mining industry and a commitment to it at all levels from those who work in it. En supporting the Bill, I hope that I hear from the Minister a similar exciting response to the prospects for the future.

Mr. Raymond Ellis: Whatever else the Bill is likely to do and is intended to do, it is bound to drive the nation's coal mining industry further into debt. That is the main point of my speech. The coal industry's interest payments are running at £1 million per working day and are increasing, which is having a retarding and almost crippling effect on the one industry that could trigger off the rejuvenation and revival of the British economy.
All the loans described in the Bill should be converted to outright grants. Even so, the total amounts specified are nowhere near enough to enable the National Coal Board to fulfill its true potential in the interests of the nation. People could ask why the coal industry in isolation should be exempt from standard financial loan charges that apply to some of the sectors of industry. I justify the assertion that the NCB should be exempt from loan charges by quoting its history. It is a history of Government misuse. It is a history of the chopping and changing of long-term directives in the interest of short-term and short-sighted expediency.
When the coal industry was nationalised in 1947, that was not done as an act of Socialism. On the contrary, it was the key act in the rescue operation that was being mounted to save and restructure British capitalism after six

years of war. Not only was our entire manufacturing, wealth-producing sector ravaged by the war effort, but our only energy producer had gone into the war deprived of capital equipment, with lack of investment and devoid of any sort of comprehensive or cohesive planning. After the war the coal industry, like the miners it employed, was well and truly on its knees. The nation was well aware of that. After the general election in 1945 Sir Winston Churchill is reputed to have said that the owners of Britain's coal mines had for long been a millstone around the neck of the Conservative Party and that they had now sunk it. Therefore, by an act of national emergency the affairs of the coal industry were vested in the central body of the NCB.
That was done not only because private enterprise could not and would not find the sums necessary to produce the output that the nation needed, but for the important reason that, given the enormous energy crisis of that time, the capitalists would have charged the last penny that the market would stand and pocketed the profits from the exploitation and production of coal. That is their enduring, if not endearing, custom. Given the opportunity, they would have driven the restructuring of British industry into further decay.
The NCB was given clear, hard and inflexible instructions to charge no more than the cost of production. It was forbidden to take advantage of an almost uniquely favourable seller's market. It was to make no profits and no surplus. It had to do no more than break even, without provision for capital investment, research into new techniques or contingency funding in any shape or form. Those aspects were supposed to be the function of the Government.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the board neither made a profit nor supplied a market desperately wanting coal and that to some extent we are still suffering from the concept of rationing which began then and has prevailed almost ever since?

Mr. Ellis: One must remember also that the industry picked up from being flat on its back and managed to bring many people from the Armed Services back into civilian work. My point is that the coal was artificially priced. The world market price would have enabled the board to make a bomb.
I remember standing at the top of Orgreave pit, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), on 1 January 1947, which we thought might be closed. We listened to all the fine speeches and the new National Coal Board flag was unfurled. It was as blue as a bilberry, which should perhaps have been a warning to us of what was coming. Nevertheless, we swallowed all the fine speeches. We were told that there would be no more exploitation, that the mines were being placed in our custody on behalf of the nation and that after we had been paid a decent wage the profit made by the board would be used to finance the new concept of the Welfare State.
We were not told, however, that as soon as market conditions changed the rules would be changed as well. In the first 10 years of nationalisation, the difference between the true price of free market coal and the lower price imposed upon the industry has been reliably estimated at £3,000 million. That estimate was made 25 years ago.
Taking account of a quarter of a century's inflation and interest rates, it is clear that if the board had been allowed from the outset to let the price of coal find its own level on the free market at that time it could have used the surpluses to fund all its capital investment and research projects, with plenty to spare, from then until the present day. It would have been worth a bomb, but the board was not allowed to do that.
When the oil glut came in the mid-1950s and the market changed, the rules were changed. The then Conservative Government not only imposed limits upon coal stocking, forcing the closure of many pits that the nation might wish it still had today, but said that from that time onwards the industry must be run as an ordinary business, in that it would have to borrow to invest. All that was done deliberately to drive the industry firmly and inextricably into the hands of the loan sharks in the Treasury.
The Bill intensifies that process. In the beginning the cheap coal was supposed to be used to enable our manufacturing industries to price themselves back into the world market, but it did not work out like that. The British entrepreneurs simply charged the full market price and cheerfully pocketed the surplus. Today, however, the British miner has to pay the interest on the money borrowed to improve the industry for the benefit of the nation. That is why I describe this as a three card trick played twice.
Although the Government may think that we should be grateful because we have to grab anything that will allow the industry to keep operating, the truth is that the coal mining industry owes no debt of gratitude to anybody. The industry and all those who have worked in it have been grossly misused. From time to time we hear unfounded assertions that nationalised industries do not work, yet this one has certainly worked. Over the years, despite all the odds, the story of coal in Britain has been the greatest success story of all time and no one can deny that. It rescued the British economy after the war, and now, as it becomes clear that another major world energy crisis is approaching, the British coal industry stands poised and ready to rescue Britain again. Moreover, there will soon be an ever-growing export market open to it.
I do not ask the House to accept my word for that. I shall quote from Government Executive, the magazine for top decision-makers, which we all receive. The magazine refers to an important report distributed by the Association of the Coal Producers of the European Community, saying:
Despite all warnings, in the eight years since the first Middle East oil crisis, the Community continues to rely for more than 70 per cent. of total energy requirements on oil and natural gas.
The report adds that a consensus has now emerged on the need to return to coal, and continues:
The goal is clear. There should be no further delay at any level in taking decisions and in defining a suitable policy for the financing of all the links of the coal chain that stretches from the pit to the final consumer.
Furthermore, the association recommends that Europe should
Maintain indigenous coal production capacities and promote investment in new mines within the community. As long term commitments require substantial capital outlay, the investments should be maintained even in times of market weakness.
That is what always happens with the trade cycle. It is important to invest at the bottom of the trade cycle, because a pit takes 10 years to come into production and

the capacity will not be there until the top of the trade cycle is reached again. The time of slump is not the time to cut back. It is the time to give hope for the future and that is how one gets out of the slump.
The Bill does not take full and true account of the situation. In the interests of the country, the industry must expand. As well as maintaining existing coalfields we must develop not only the potentially extremely productive virgin coalfields at Selby and the Vale of Belvoir, but many more. The Bill does not provide for such necessary expansion. It has other major shortcomings, which have been mentioned. The most important is the lack of provision for improvements in early retirement schemes. I am not a pro—Marketeer, but miners throughout the country were coaxed into voting "Yes" in the referendum to join the EEC on the ground that British industry would be forced to abide by the rules of the EEC and that retirement would be possible at 50 or 55 as in the rest of Europe.
How long do we have to wait for that? If we cannot achieve early retirement now, when more than one person in eight is looking for work, when can we have it? Early retirement would cut unemployment. Moreover, if the so-called oppressed miners in Russia can retire on full wages at 50, at least some provision should be made to finance improvements in Britain, especially if the Government take into account the fact that miners have earned it by taking a cut in real wages.
All authoritative sources agree that a major world energy crisis is on its way. Now is the time to invest for when the world moves out of recession. Investment must be made not only in new pits, new techniques and in the production of coal, but in the cracking of coal for the production of gas, oil and petrochemicals. None of this can be financed by the industry itself. Only the Government can do that. Moreover, the Government owe it to the industry, if only because of the constant year by year improvement in attendance and productivity. The real way forward is to convert all the loans envisaged in the Bill into straightforward grants, to intensify the necessary investment and to write off all the existing debts in the interests of the nation.

Mr. John Hannam: I join the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on his excellent and informative opening speech and on the general success that he has had in his important role as Minister responsible for the coal industry. No one will deny that ensuring the growth and modernisation of our largest energy industry is one of the most difficult tasks that a Minister has to face.
Both sides of the House agree that my hon. Friend has presented a realistic picture of the gains and losses in the coal industry programme. The recession has hit the coal industry extremely hard, causing a sharp decline in energy demand and, therefore, a sharp decline in coal sales. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that the scheme proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for industrial conversion from oil to coal has not been a great success. It has not got off the ground, and there is a general view that improvements in the scheme are necessary to make it more attractive to industry.
Another problem has been the higher-than-inflation costs imposed on consumers by the nationalised energy industries. If those industries had trimmed their overheads,


as private industry has had to do, their charges would not have increased so dramatically and consumption would not have dropped so sharply. However, since the Government took office there have been improvements in productivity and output. The recent decision on pay by the miners was a very encouraging step towards the creation of the kind of cost-effective and efficient coal industry that everyone wants to see.
The welcome drop in mining deaths in recent years belies the arguments so often used by Mr. Scargill and the militant Left that increased productivity would result in reduced safety standards. A few years ago the hon. Member for Midlothian argued strong and hard that the productivity deal would not impair safety standards. That and similar arguments by hon. Members have been borne out by the facts.
The background to the debate is respect for the common sense of the mineworkers over the recent pay award, regret that this common sense did not apply last February when the dispute over pit closures put back the coal industry several years, and realism that the industry, while having to make many difficult decisions in the years ahead, has the full backing of the Government for the role of coal in the energy equation for the coming half century.
It has been said that Britain is fortunate in having self-sufficiency in energy, but there are many complications inherent in that simple statement. For example, vast investments have been plunged into oil and gas developments over a comparatively short span of years. Nuclear power has been developed which can only be used for the production of electricity and which is unlikely to contribute more than 20 per cent. to electricity generation in the foreseeable future. Long lead times are necessary for decisions if energy is to be made available for succeeding generations at the right competitive price.
Coal is the resource that will be needed for our chemical feedstocks when oil runs out, for the supply of fuel, as a substitute for gas, and, later, for the supply of oil from coal. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has said, the question that arises is whether this change in the use of coal can be accommodated in the present coal industry structure.
In Europe, a doubling of demand and, therefore, of production—I fear that the latter is unlikely to be achieved—is forecast during the next 20 years. At the same time, world potential for coal exports and new technologies is immense, while in the United Kingdom the coalburn of our electricity generating stations has increased from under 70 per cent. 10 years ago, to over 80 per cent. in the past year, and coal exports more than doubled during the last two years.
Only the most foolishly optimisic observer would claim that the present structure of the coal industry, with its constant confrontation between national management and labour, betokens well for the future. The taxpayer, through the Government, contributes his side of the bargain. It is small wonder that feelings should be expressed that the country given the vast support accorded the coal industry, is entitled to expect more progress to be made in improving the industry's long-term management structure to break down the monolithic, political confrontation that has existed from generation to generation throughout the industry.
However, anyone who knows the industry is aware that it is not over-managed and over-bureaucratic. Nor are its salary levels out of line. Looking ahead 15 or 20 years to

the time when new coal technologies are developed and when the massive investment world-wide in oil industries is re-diverted to coal-based energy resources, we should be asking ourselves questions about the structure of this historic mineral extractive industry and whether it is equipped to deal with vast changes.
I support the Bill as a means of carrying the coal industry through the short-term difficult recessionary times that lie ahead. Like my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, I expressed doubts in 1980 about whether the revised EFL targets laid down by the Government could be met during a period when falling demand was obvious to everyone. The February debacle last year precipitated a revision of the financing limits. With hindsight it can be seen that we might have avoided such a large subsequent increase in financial support if the Coal Industry Act 1980 had been more realistic about the future.
I have been involved in the proceedings on most Bills affecting the coal industry since the early 1970s. It was a Conservative Government who, in 1973, reversed the long decline that had occurred since 1958, during which time there was a two-thirds reduction in the number of pits and men. The main damage during the rundown was caused by lack of investment in new pits. This caused the problem of high cost coal and too many uneconomic pits. The period was also marked by a gap of 23 years between the opening of our last big deep pit at Kellingley and the new Selby pit. During that time miners' wages dropped from first to twentieth in the industrial league and extremism was born again in the industry.
In 1973 the OPEC oil crisis caused a rethink of policies. Since then a cohesive investment plan has grown with borrowing limits rising from £550 million in 1973 to today's limit of £4,500 million. These vast investments cause not a little resentment among hard-pressed industrialists. It is important to ensure that people understand the nature of coal investment and that they see the coal industry giving good value for the large support received from taxpayers.
The "Plan for Coal" laid down targets for productivity and pit closures. The need expressed in the 1974 plan, was for a 4 per cent. improvement in productivity each year and the closure of 4 million tons a year of old uneconomic capacity. The Labour Government achieved only a quarter or one-fifth of these aims. The National Coal Board's financial performance has been seriously impaired because of that failure. The mishandling of the pit closure programme last February landed the NCB in a further crisis for which the taxpayer is now picking up the bill. The Opposition leapt at the chance, in our state of politics, to cause discomfiture to the Government by helping to stir up the miners over that emotive issue. As usual, in the final event, industry and the British taxpayer foot the cost.
In the context of new and efficient coal extraction, should like to mention a matter that has already been raised. I refer to the Vale of Belvoir. If we talk about competitive coal and the opportunities ahead, we must face the question of new pits and the Belvoir problem. Just as the anti-nuclear brigade argues against Sizewell or, indeed, any other proposed nuclear station on the ground of low electricity demand, so the anti-Belvoir environmentalists use the same demand forecasts to argue against any new coal mines in the foreseeable future.
I fully understand, and feel some sympathy for, the campaign at Belvoir against the original NCB proposals for three pits in that valley. It is a lovely valley. As my


hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) said, there are two sides to all stories of industrial development against protection of the environment. However, I do not believe that we can survive in the longer term without the development of that valuable coal seam. Nor do I believe that a satisfactory compromise cannot be found, albeit possible at higher cost.
By the 1990s the extraction of the Belvoir coal will be essential if we are even to maintain the 120 million to 130 million tonnes production that we are now aiming for, let alone try to achieve the 170 million tonnes by 2000 laid down in "Plan for Coal".
The other factor that must be taken into account is the rundown and exhaustion of the other Leicestershire pits throughout the decade. About 4,000 Leicestershire miners will seek other work, and their expertise and moderation will be desperately needed in the industry of the future. Before we allow the Secretary of State for the Environment or any other Minister to throw out the Belvoir plan en bloc, all of us who understand the need for the coal industry on energy and employment grounds should exert the maximum pressure on the board and the Department of Energy to reach a compromise solution. One example is reducing the number of pits from the proposed three to two and excluding the Hose village pit proposal, which seems to be the most provocative from the environmental point of view.
It must be possible to extract the coal in a manner that will not destroy the Belvoir environment. While there is a case for some delay in developing there, it would be wrong to delay for too long. That would cause severe difficulties in the 1990s as coal began to replace oil as the base feedstock.
I believe in the coal industry. Despite the reservations that I have expressed about last February's nonsense, I support the Bill as evidence of the Government's determination to maintain investment in coal. I hope that the coal industry will put politics aside in the coming years and set out upon a determined path of improvement and investment so that we may produce the coal that we shall need in the years to come, at a price that we and the world can afford to pay.

Mr. Alan Fitch: I find it difficult to disagree with the contents of the Minister's speech, but I was concerned about its emphasis, which seemed to suggest that the coal industry did not have the future that I and many of my hon. Friends believe that it has. The hon. Gentleman was pessimistic, but I should add, to be fair to him, that as his speech went on he became a little more enthusiastic.
We are discussing a very important subject—the use of our one indigenous fuel. It is a reliable fuel—probably the most reliable—and one that is not subject to the whims of international politics. It is our duty to do everything that we can to see that the industry thrives.
I have no quarrel with the Minister about the Bill. Indeed, I welcome it. It is both necessary, because I am sure that the National Coal Board can always do with more money, and timely. Perhaps it is a coincidence, but there has just been a ballot among the miners. I personally believe that the result was good for the industry's stability and for the country in general. If the result of the ballot

had been different, the speeches today might not have been as constructive as they have been. It is very important that we have a stable coal industry for the foreseeable future, and I believe that the ballot has gone quite a long way towards ensuring that.
We must concentrate on the immediate problem, which is—though this may not be the best way to express it—a return to a coal economy. During the 1960s coal lost a large part of the market as a result of the influx of cheap oil from the Middle East. The change was so rapid that European Community consumption of oil is now two and a half times that of coal. The danger of excessive dependence on oil has been apparent in the past decade. There has been a series of price explosions. With oil reserves falling behind consumption, I believe that prices will continue to rise. Some Conservative hon. Members have argued that oil prices are likely to go down, but I do not think that they are.
It follows that coal must play a great part in the replacement of oil—in fact, it has a vital part to play—through our increasing our demands, not in two or three years, but now. Future energy supply may fall short of requirements. What is at stake is a viable coal industry ready to fill any gap in our energy supplies.
A report by Cambridge Information and Research Services puts in a nutshell what I am saying, and probably says it better. It says that a substantial switch to coal would bring considerable benefits to the United Kingdom, reducing oil demand by 12 million tonnes per year. Fuel oil price increases since 1979 mean that coal has had an unprecedented advantage of more than 10p a therm and is more than a third cheaper than oil. Even though coal will continue to be prone to upward tariff pressures, its significant price advantage is likely to be maintained. The report also says that the average payback period of four years for industrial coal conversion schemes can be reduced by the £50 million Government grants scheme. Although increasingly aware of coal's advantages for bulk heat needs, industry continues to be constrained from converting by lack of funds. That is important. Funds must be made available to industry to undertake the necessary conversion.
The matter has been summed up by Sir Derek Ezra. As has been said in the debate, we in this country have enough coal for the next three centuries, though our oil is likely to last for only about 28 years. The case is made for a viable coal industry needing all the protecton and encouragement that any Government can give it.
Research has been touched on during this debate, but in my opinion research must be encouraged by increasing the amount of aid available for coal research under article 55 of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty in coal mining and coal utilisation, by stipulating and accelerating research on the gasification and liquefaction of coal to facilitate the application of this technology at the industrial level.
Does the Minister or his officials meet members of the National Coal Board to discuss research into new methods of mining and of conversion? If so, is this on a regular basis, because I think, that it is extremely important that the Government discuss this with the coal industry. After all, part of our "Plan for Coal" is based on adequate research.
I want to go back briefly to the subject that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), when he mentioned the Vale of Belvoir. This is


very important indeed, I do not want to go over the argument, which he put extremely well, about the losses likely to occur over the next 10 years in the Leicester coalfields and some coalfields in Nottingham. I want to deal with the point about the environmentalists.
We are all environmentalists up to a point, or we should be. We should want to preserve the environment at the highest level of quality, but I wonder sometimes whether some of or friends in the environmentalist movement know exactly what is going on. It is possible to undertake opencast coal operations today in such a way that there is virtually no sign when the operation has finished that it has ever taken place. There are new and modern methods of extracting coal which do not mark or mar the countryside. I understand that the lignite field along the Rhine in the Federal Republic of Germany is an outstanding example of how to recultivate opencast areas.
I am not personally familiar with the Vale of Belvoir project, but I think that the modern methods at the disposal of the National Coal Board mean that very little damage will be done. I say to our environmentalist friends, who sometimes get carried away by what they regard as the rightness of their cause, that, generally speaking, we must protect the environment, but they must not be carried away. We must consider every project as it comes along.
I do not want to digress, but I have had a little experience of the problem through my interest in the roads study campaign, where we have had quite a lot of opposition from environmentalists to the building of motorways.:In my opinion, and that of many other hon. Members, some of the motorways built have not harmed the environment, but have improved it. I shall not suggest that opencast mining will improve the environment, but I do not believe that it will be detrimental to it. Certainly the need to keep our people at work far outweighs any temporary inconvenience.
The Vale of Belvoir inquiry was concluded in May, I believe, and ask the Minister to tell us tonight when the Government will let us know their decision. It is important. This matter has been going on for nearly two years.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire)—we both come from the Lancashire coalfield—I should like to pay a tribute to the efforts and work of the miners, not only in Lancashire, but in the country in general. Little is heard of the quite astonishing decrease in absenteeism. It is a very difficult job, and to have a 100 per cent. record of attendance in the coal mining industry is something of which to be extremely proud. There has been a decline in absenteeism and an increase in productivity, and there has certainly been an improvement in safety methods.
I know that there may be disagreement on this side of the House about the outcome of the miners' ballot, but there is no disagreement as far as I am concerned. Had I still been working as an underground miner in Lancashire I should have voted for the Coal Board's offer, but I realise that some of my hon. Friends think differently. I believe that the miners, by their recent action, have given great stability to this industry. I am very proud indeed of my connection with it and I want to see the industry grow in power and strength, because it has a tremendous contribution lo make to the economy of this country if we are to be a really first-class industrial power in Europe.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch). When he said that coal was our only indigenous fuel I thought it surprising that he had not heard of oil, natural gas, depleted uranium and plutonium. The last two would, in a fast reactor, produce the energy equivalent of all the reserves of coal in the United Kingdom. However, he made a very good speech, and he did mention the Vale of Belvoir.
Curiously enough, I can see the point that where we have pit closures—and I have been in favour of pit closures—they should be coupled with the opening of new and prosperous pits. I see no sense in having an output per man-shift in a pit of, say 1 tonne when there is Selby which will produce 10 tonnes OMS. It seems to make sense that we should take this route towards highly economic pits.
I want to ask the Minister one or two questions. He is here to answer such points. When are we going to have a decision on the Vale of Belvoir? We have had to wait so long. It is in the interests of the Department of Energy that we should know the decision, so is he prepared to make an announcement? I assume that he has had consultations with his right hon. Friend, and something must surely be coming along.
If we have to get rid of the colliery waste, whether it is to be transported down to the potholes of Bedfordshire or to the coast to lie on the beach, this of course, is going to put up the price of coal. What are the economics of the Vale of Belvoir coal? Is it going to be worth while in the absence of markets? When is it likely to be in production? These are the questions that I should like answered. My hon. Friend has ushered in the Coal Industry Bill 1981. Last year he took the troops up the hill and he took the troops down again. He raised expectations for 1983 and 1984, and still the NCB has not broken even.
I wonder whether next year we shall have to pay further dane-geld to the miners. I wonder whether we shall have to pay a high price when the time comes.
When I look at the terms of this Bill, I am amazed at the amount of money which is being spent. Of course, this is the result of what happened in February last year, and now the price has to be paid—the cheques have to be written. Between 1973–74 and 1981–82 the capital investment in the mines, according to the Minister's calculation, was £3 billion. I have worked it out as £3.6 billion. When we look at the period 1973 to 1981, social grants, operating grants and deficit grants add up to £1.2 billion. I agree that most of these come in the period of a Conservative Government, when significant sums were involved, but what is going to be the end to all this? In the very good speech which the Minister made—and I pay a tribute to him for it—he virtually inferred that we have a diminished domestic market and had increased exports at a lower yield per tonne. Between 8 million and 10 million tonnes is being exported. The NCB has 124 tonnes of coal to dispose of. The market is contracting year by year. Money is being poured into the great coal vortex, and a substantial part of the money secured from the North Sea goes straight into the NCB's requirements. I agree that coal has a golden future, but not tomorrow.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that it might not be United Kingdom costs that have fallen out of line, but those of South Africa, Australia and the United States. The


Minister feeds us on hopes, but it is difficult to argue that we must have more money year after year and that eventually we shall reach the halycon days. It will not be 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, or even the early 1990s. It may well be the next century.

Mr. Hardy: Every time that the hon. Gentleman speaks about coal he ignores the fact that the British coal industry provides a secure home base and a vital test base for the mining engineering industry. The coal industry may not make a profit in the years that he mentioned, but it is essential for development programmes to proceed to back that winner. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, we should have no industrial winners at all.

Mr. Skeet: I am for a viable mining industry. I pay tribute to the miners. In 1947 we had 704,000; in 1981 we had only 226,000. The industry has been slimmed down over the years by Labour Governments. About 76 per cent. of the pit closures occurred under the Labour Governments of 1965 to 1970 and 1974 to 1979. We want a viable industry, but we shall not get one by pumping in money when there is only a limited market for the Industry's product.
In a publication by Colin Robinson and Eileen Marshall "What Future for Coal?" the conclusion is that the market is considerably diminished. They say it will be between 75 million and 110 million tonnes per annum, although that may be wide of the mark. Quintin Hilton has come to the conclusion that in the year 2000 the market will be 107 million to 123 million tonnes. One has to be careful about this. If we continue to invest in the industry and make it too large for our requirements, someone will lose a lot of money, and that somebody will be the taxpayer. I hope that someone will argue the taxpayer's case.
I turn to the subject of pit closures. In 1981 there were 13 closures. The controversial list of 30 March 1981 totals 23. Ten from the controversial list were closed in 1981. The severe injuries at Cardowan would possibly not have occurred had the pit closure taken place at the time that the Government ordered.
I find it difficult to understand the case of the Molcais colliery near Llanelli, a constituency which I fought many years ago when I reduced the number of votes for the then right hon. Member for Llanelli, Mr. James Griffiths, by 5,000. The Financial Times of 12 May 1981 stated:
Controversy over the colliery's future was brought to a head last week by roof falls and near floods in the mine. Mr. Williams—
the South Wales miners leader—
said that they did not necessarily accept that men working in water was sufficient reason for a pit to close.
What inhumanity to man! Even though an economic deposit may be left, there can be other reasons for closure. It is an extraordinary suggestion that men should work in water to recover what coal is left. Other reasons for closure should include serious fracturing of rock, fire damp, uncontrollable water and so forth. There may also be good engineering reasons for closure.

Mr. Allen McKay: The colliery where I cut my teeth is in the evening of its life. It has between 2 and 8 years left. The area director promised that he would not close the colliery because of the work done over the past years and the contribution made to the NCB's finances. It was always profitable. Water was a problem

which could have caused the colliery to be closed, but miracles do happen. The pit cannot now make the drivages fast enough for the amount of coal that is coming out. The water has been left behind, and the men are working in quite a dry place.

Mr. Skeet: There are also cases in the new mines in Selby which are not yet producing coal but will be shortly. One of the big problems is water. Water has been excluded from the drift mine, but a great difficulty is that the subsidence may alter the water table. The Yorkshire water authority is concerned about the impact on local people's property. I hope that the problem can be solved. The output of coal per man-shift is expected to be 10 tonnes, which is a great improvement on the national average.
I feel strongly about the pits. I want a viable industry. I pay tribute to the men who are prepared to do a job that I and many of my colleagues in the House are not prepared to do. We hear that the number of fatalities is down to 34, but that is 34 too many. I, too, should like to see firing underground with no men involved and no lives at risk.
I mention closures because perhaps we can see the beginning of a solution. For example, if the controversial list is taken into account, and we take the average output per man-shift of the 23 pits, it works out at 1.518 tonnes output per man-shift. Selby has 10 tonnes per man-shift. The national average is 2.3 tonnes per man-shift. To take an improved mine, Thoresby has 45 tonnes per man-shift and Betws in Wales 3.5. The conclusion is obvious. A greater return from the new pits will mean unit costs will be reduced and the industry will gradually become more profitable. The recent production cost figure for Selby has been £18.50 per tonne, which is well below the costs in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is in such pits that opportunities are growing.
In 1981 the NCB delivered price to the power stations was about £40 per tonne. This was because of price increases in January and November 1981.
National Coal Board deliveries on Tameside were at £45 per tonne. According to a parliamentary answer, the production cost of hard coal in 1980 was £34 per tonne. The NCB prices on Tameside are between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. dearer than imports from Australia, although, as the Minister said, it is more expensive to take the coal to inland power stations. However, because Australian and Japanese contracts are not going through, more coal is being dumped on the world market, which could result in even lower prices. I learnt from another parliamentary answer that between January and September 1981 the average cost or value of coal per tonne cif from Australia was £31.
The conclusion is interesting. Our costs are too high because of unprofitable pits, many of which should be closed. In passing, I pay tribute to the chairman of the NCB. The chairman issued a list of 23 pits. It would have been in the NCB's long-term interest to close those pits. The situation is unique. The industry is producing too much coal. The market is deteriorating. Some argue that by the year 2000 the yearly production will be 80 million, 90 million or 100 million tonnes. The NCB and perhaps the TUC may put it as high as 170 million tonnes. As legislators, we must see that the Government's money is not wasted. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) suggested that we should have a new "Plan for Coal". If it came after an inquiry, it would make a lot of sense.
About 124 million tonnes of coal are produced in the United Kingdom. Imports are down to 750,000 tonnes. The CEGB contracted to import 2.5 million tonnes, and now has to stock the remainder on the Continent or sell it to another buyer. It is a ridiculous arrangement. Consumers do not want to pay high prices. Expensive coal makes expensive electricity. The report on the CEGB shows that it could import 10 million tonnes a year, but that would make further difficulties for the NCB, which we wish to avoid.
I hope that the Chancellor will pay heed to our arguments. His £50 million plan is not working. The Under-Secretary of State tells us that £17 million has been committed, but a commitment is not enough. The incentives must be strengthened. Our indigenous coal industry must be of a viable size. Its future will not be realised next year or even in the next decade. Liquefaction will not be fully realised until the next century. We are wasting a considerable amount of money on it. Licensing from abroad may be the cheapest way to proceed with it, although I do not wish to remove the opportunity to participate with the private sector to get the answers right.
I am probably the only hon. Member on the Government Benches to say that I am not entirely satisfied with the Bill An enormous amount of money has been laid out as the pay-off for the trouble last February. Doubtless we shall have another Coal Bill in 1982 or 1983. We shall hear the same old arguments from the Front Bench-how magnificent the miners are, how good production is, that absenteeism has gone down from 18 per cent. to 11 per cent. and how we have blocked imports, with the exception of 750,000 tonnes for the CEGB. I concede all that.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made a long speech about the merits of the miners and the NCB, but he said nothing about the market. He did not reply to my intervention. He knows that there is a limited market for coal. Had the NCB been in the private sector, it would have gone bust years ago. We are pouring money into the nationalised industries from every side. Money is going to the British Steel Corporation and to BL. That is why our taxes are so high.
I shall support the Bill and the Government's initiative. The Minister talks of a golden future, but if he examines our arguments he will see that the proposals are no solution. They are danegeld, and more will be called for. It may mean satisfaction for the miner but not for United Kingdom Ltd.

Mr. Albert Roberts.: It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). I wish that the late Sir Gerald Nabarro were here. The hon. Gentleman will have read "Ten Steps to Power".
The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said that the Minister's presentation was good. I agree. I have been in the House since 1951 and have been connected with the pits for 60 years. I have listened to similar debates over many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) also made an exceedingly good speech. The academic points made by the hon. Member for Bedford were amusing.
In the 1950s the late Sir John Cockcroft said that nuclear energy would be on a par with coal in 1965. The 1951–64 Government poured millions of pounds into nuclear energy. We never knew how much. The hon.

Gentleman talked about money going to the NCB. I appreciate the Bill, although it is lamentable that we have to pay interest. When the pits were in private ownership, one coal owner said that he wanted to produce coal so cheaply that he could afford to give it away and still make a profit. I do not know whether that is the hon. Gentleman's philosophy. At that time, we were all cheap miners. I was in the pits in 1922.
The hon. Member for New Forest wanted to see more private enterprise in the industry. He would not say that if he had had the experience that I and some of my hon. Friends have had. The pits were nationalised in 1946. The NCB was formed in January 1947, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Ellis) said. I was then a mines inspector. Safety has improved gradually over the years. The NCB made it the paramount consideration.
I am sorry that over the past few years we have not had an annual debate on the annual report of the National Coal Board. We always had such a debate in the 1950s and early 1960s and it gave us a marvellous opportunity to discuss matters on which we cannot ask questions. Coal industry debates are always good debates; they are fair and there is no acrimony. I should like in future time to be provided for a debate on the National Coal Board report, and on the gas and electricity industries, annual reports as well.
The Minister referred to the reduction in accidents and fatalities, and we are all pleased to hear about that. However, I wish to digress for a moment on the question of pneumonconiosis. At the moment the National Union of Mineworkers is in contact with the National Coal Board. This does not mean a lot. I know that some miners have commuted their rights, but the NUM is asking that a £600 settlement should be made across the board. It will not cost a lot of money. The miners are asking for that money because black lung disease was discovered 150 years ago and since then thousands of miners have died without compensation being paid. I was off work for 16 weeks and received £16.
I hope that the Minister will get in touch with the National Coal Board on this important point to see whether the matter can be settled. It will show that there may be some magnanimity in the Government if the question can be settled once and for all.
Like the hon. Member for Bedford, I shall deal with the question of coal stocks. In 1957 there was a recession. We must bear in mind, although I say this objectively, that the Comservative Government came to power in 1951, when the cupboard was full. Britain had just gone through the war in Korea and it was pretty well stocked. In 1957, there was a recession and coal stocking. At that time it cost 10s. a ton. It is now about £12 a ton. This is why I should like to see coal exports developed, and why I pleaded for no industrial confrontation. The miners have voted for no confrontation for 12 months. If we are to develop our export markets there must be continuity.

Mr. Skeet: We have a CAP in Europe to deal with agriculture. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be a common fuel policy to deal with British coal and other coal?

Mr. Roberts: I accept the hon. Gentleman' point. Unless we have continuity of coal exports-and I am sure we can achieve that, although it is difficult-there will be a loss to the mining industry. I have already pointed out how much it costs to stock coal.

Mr. Skeet: If the hon. Gentleman accepts the view about a common fuel policy, there will have to be a trade off. If we are to receive money for the National Coal Board, we must be prepared to concede to the Europeans.

Mr. Roberts: We have to concede to the Europeans. I do not mind subsidising coal exports in one sense if it will keep the pits going. If they are viable, they should be kept open. To keep pits such as Selby and Kellingley open while closing some of the small ones is a short-sighted policy. I cannot believe in it.
If we are to be far-sighted we must preserve something for posterity. When talking about coal plants we must talk about the next 40 to 50 years. It is futile to talk about five and six years. Hon. Members have been talking about the glut of oil and coal, and of energy in general. However, while the grass is growing the horse is starving. People are dying because they cannot meet their bills. What kind of world are we living in?
I am a believer in a cheap energy policy, although not at the expense of the workers. Energy to industry should be at a reasonable price. One can go into any home or industry and find that they are all complaining about the excessive cost of energy. Can we put this right? We have nuclear energy, 80 per cent. of electricity is produced by oil, there is gas and now there is a glut of oil as well. Yet we have a dear energy policy.
There is a way out of this dilemma. The Government should try to bring something out of this muddle, even if it means subsidising, if it will help industry. This is where the coal industry can play a very important part.
The hon. Member for Bedford spoke about the cost under the Bill of pouring in millions to the coal industry. I do not mind the money, provided that the maximum number of industries can benefit. This is the important consideration. If subsidised fuel is being provided-and I do not mind that-and everybody is having the maximum benefit from it, it will help our economy tremendously. My knowledge and experience of the question of energy may not be as good as that of some. However, it is elementary that if people cannot afford a commodity there will be contraction of the market. That is what is happening in this country and possibly in other parts of the world as well.
I have visited industrialists in my constituency and they tell me that one of the things which hamper them is the cost of energy. Yet what do we do? We are floating on energy—we have coal reserves which in my part of the world extend from Selby down to the Lincolnshire Wash basin. Coal is there to be extracted. I have no worry over that. There is research into new energy fields, and I am sure it is not beyond the ingenuity of man to bring out more in the next 30 years which will help us. So why should we be starving ourselves of the heat that we need and of benefits we can derive from energy? I was always taught that in importance heat and energy come next to food.
There has been opencast mining in my constituency since 1940. I have some sympathy with the complaints of the environmentalists. The technique in opencast mining has been improved tremendously. I knew the hon. Member who first raised in the House the question of opencast mining. He worked for McAlpines. I know that a good job is done in opencast mining and in restoration, which is important. However, we have had opencast mining since 1940 and that is enough.
It has been suggested that coal is a reserve which should be kept unmined. I plead with the Minister not to allow opencast mining to exceed more than 15 million tons a year. I know that the argument in favour of it is that it is cheaper than deep mining. That is beside the point. I live where I was born and bred and we are surrounded by opencast mining. It started in 1940, it still continues and is developing, and is likely to go on for the next 20 years. There is no reason why the coal should not stay in the ground. If we need it in 600 years, it will still be there. Why extract it now when we have a glut?
I now turn to the subject of the Flowers report. My part of the world has suffered tremendously from what has been left behind by industry. West Yorkshire county council has written to me about this. It is anxious to play its part in an efficient coal industry and in supporting a national energy policy, but at the same time it believes that opencast mining has been over-stretched, and this has left the area with many residual problems.
What about the old spoil banks that are left? I hope that some money will be diverted to deal with those. We have already been told about the Vale of Belvoir and the spoil banks there. Spoil banks have been with us for generations, but some have been magnificently restored. I hope that the Minister will give some help in implementing the Flowers report.
I make my plea on behalf of West Yorkshire, because much restoration work needs to be done there. The people in the area have a right to decent environmental surroundings.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I declare an interest, in that I am connected with a firm that is involved with the coal industry. About 20 years ago I gave some of the best years of my life to help with the computerisation of the payroll for mineworkers in the Durham and Northumberland divisions of the NCB-in the piping days of Conservative prosperity when there were about 120,000 miners in the coalfields.
I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) said, and before coming to my principal remarks I wish to touch on two points that he raised. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that a decision about whether private enterprise was good or bad compared with State enterprise should be based on a judgment about whether life in the 1920s is a reliable measure for private enterprise working conditions in the 1980s. In all sincerity, I do not believe that that is a sensible comparison.
Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman a fairer comparison in another energy industry. Within the last few months, I have visited a platform drilling oil in the North Sea. I promise the hon. Gentleman that the standard of food and conditions of service of every worker on that platform compare favourably with anything found in the House of Commons. They are certainly better than anything that the hon. Gentleman will find in the coal industry. That platform is run by a private enterprise company. I shall not labour the point, except to say that the hon. Gentleman's comparison between public and private enterprise should be made in present-day terms.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to exports. I agree with him about the importance of seeking to develop an export market for coal. If the hon. Gentleman knows anyone from abroad who is looking at British attempts to


export coal, I hope that he will try to persuade him to believe what his hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said about subsidies. If it were believed that we were subsidising exports of coal below the cost of production, there would be a lot of trouble for all our trade with many countries. I therefore hope that what the hon. Member for Midlothian said will be believed.
Apart from the hon. Member for Midlothian, I am the only Scottish Member attending the debate. I am grateful to the Minister for visiting the Cardowan pit last weekend. What he said while there, and his remarks this afternoon, will be greatly appreciated in Scotland, particularly by those concerned with the mining industry. It was encouraging to hear the hon. Member for Midlothian support what the Minister said on that occasion about the safety aspects and the effectiveness of the operations.
The discussions arising out of that kind of disaster relate mainly to the safety conditions, the environment in which miners work and the fact that it is a horrible and dangerous job. That sometimes means that Labour Members suffer from a sort of schizophrenia. I suppose that that is simply a posh way of saying "two-facedness". On the one hand they point to all the horrors of a miner's work, yet the moment someone proposes to stop putting men down a dirty hole to do the work they say "You must not stop any miners from going underground. You must not have any pit closures or improved mechanisation." There is a confusion o f argument. I look forward to the day when we can have an effective coal industry without anyone burrowing underground.

Mr. George Grant: The hon. Gentleman said that he had worked for the NCB and referred to 120,000 miners in the Northern region. Perhaps he will understand the attitude of Labour Members to pit closures when he remembers that because of pit closures that have taken place over the past two decades the unemployment rate in the Northern region is now 18 per cent.

Mr. Henderson: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the loss of jobs. Heaven knows, we do not want to see any jobs lost. I was talking about 20 years ago, when I worked with the NCB, not for it. At that time many other jobs were available. It was the period of full employment. People resisted the closures then, even though alternative employment: for miners was available. At that time miners were proving how skilled they were at adapting to other jobs. Had that action taken place, there would be fewer problems in the coal industry today.
I recognise that the Government were in honour bound to bring the Bill before the House, but that does not mean that one must like it. It was good to hear my hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to the coal industry. It is right that we should congratulate the miners on their wisdom in the recent ballot. It is only fair to congratulate the NCB and its employees on achieving some increased productivity for the first time in years. Like the Minister, I believe that there is a great future for coal and for those who work in the industry. If that potential future can be brought to fruition, it will be of enormous benefit to the country. I am sceptical about the industry's achieving anything like its full potential as long as control of it is in the hands of a State monopoly producer.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman's last remark

that he advocates selling off profitable parts of the NCB on the same lines as the Department of Energy has recommended for the oil industry?

Mr. Henderson: There have been many calls for even more investment in the National Coal Board. The Opposition say "Let us have more investment". At the moment they are demanding that investment from a reluctant taxpayer. People are falling over themselves to invest and they could get that investment if only they would let private investors contribute to the future of the coal industry. That could be done without selling off anything. Let the National Coal Board carry on, but let others have a go as well and provide an alternative source of employment for those who have no potential emloyer other than the National Coal Board.

Mr. Lofthouse: The answer is "Yes".

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) raised the question of markets and marketing. He went further than I would go and said that the market was shrinking. I do not accept that but the National Coal Board must orientate itself to the market place far more than it has done in my working lifetime. It is oriented not to the market but to satisfying itself and its employees, in one way or another before it considers its customers. The NCB must consider its customers in order to ensure that there is a real future for the industry.

Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman has evidently not looked at the structure of the National Coal Board. If he had, he would realise that the NCB has a vast marketing organisation that goes out to obtain customers and ensures that the product is exactly what the customer wants. The hon. Gentleman has evidently forgotten the marketing organisation.

Mr. Henderson: I had not forgotten it, but I was not expressing a precise view of it. At times there have been substantial shortages of coal. The board could not produce what the customer wanted although that is part of marketing. Its marketing department was an allocator of a rationed product. I submit, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in all fairness, will accept, that there is something in what I say, that a mentality still floats around the National Coal Boards marketing dept that is concerned more with allocations than with selling and creating and developing new market places.
It is disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity provided in the Bill to loosen, however slightly, the stranglehold of monopoly and restrictive trade practices that prevent the industry from achieving its potential as a key national resource.
This year the taxpayer will hand over £550 million to the National Coal Board. According to my arithmetic, that is about £35 per week for every employee of the National Coal Board. That is the taxpayer's contribution this year to the NCB. Many firms in my constituency would be very glad to have a source of capital, income, subsidy, or whatever one calls it, at the rate of £35 per employee per week during the coming year. That is the equivalent of nearly 1 per cent. on value added tax. That is a substantial sum of money, and that is only for this year. We should have more confidence in taxpayers getting better value for money if the industry had a better track record. While Governments, representing taxpayers and consumers,


have stuck to their commitments on previous deals, the response from the National Coal Board has, at times, been dismal. I accept that that has improved in the last year.
The "Plan for Coal" was introduced in 1974, and I understand that it was drafted largely by a Conservative Government. Part of the compact between the different parties that agreed to the plan, and one of the key aspects, was that productivity—measured as output per man-shift—should increase by 4 per cent. per annum. If the plan had been carried out and the deal adhered to, that should have resulted in a 32 per cent. increase in productivity after the plan's announcement. However, there has been no increase in productivity. Therefore, that part of the plan has not been adhered to. Until this year there had been no increase in productivity, and even now productivity will reach only the level found in 1972–73. Therefore, the taxpayer has been disappointed to the tune of 32 per cent. about his side of the "Plan for Coal".
The other important aspect of that plan was that uneconomic capacity was to be reduced by 4 million tonnes per annum so that more resources could be invested in new, modernised units. That would have suggested a total of 24 million tonnes during the period of the Labour Government. However, we received only one-sixth of that switch. The "Plan for Coal" represented a great effort on the part of the Government—with taxpayers' money-to work with the coal industry and set a future course for it.
The Government have responded and made substantial investments over the years, but the coal industry has not delivered its side of the bargain. As I have said, at times the NCB's record has been dismal, but in this context it can be described only as pathetic. Any hard-pressed company with that record that went today to its backers for new support would get very short shrift. The NCB has received this generous Bill.
This nationalised industry's performance has been damaging to a potentially great industry, but it has been more damaging for the nation as a whole and for electricity consumers in particular. I understand that electricity prices increase by 2 per cent. for every 5 per cent. increase in the price of coal. On average, coal prices exceeded the retail price index by 3.5 per cent. throughout the 1970s—a period of unprecedented inflation in Britain. It could be said that the coal industry has added fuel to the fire of inflation.
Last week the Opposition initiated a debate on fuel bills, which reflected the concern that many hon. Members feel about the effects of such bills on their less well-off constituents, but they said nothing about the way in which Socialism, with its doctrine of nationalisation and support for trade union muscle, had contributed to that very situation. In Britain, 80 per cent. of electricity is produced from coal.
I visited my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to talk about the problem of energy prices faced by some industries in my constituency, including the paper industry, and I was told that one problem was that it was very expensive to produce electricity. Electricity was referred to as high-cost energy. The reason for that is the price of coal. Until we create the conditions in which the coal industry can be more efficient, it will continue to hinder the efforts of manufacturing industry to be competitive. That is at the root of the job problem in Britain.
Now we are told—for the first time in a long time—that the supply of coal appears to be exceeding demand. There would be a better market now for coal if the NCB had ensured the greatest possible customer satisfaction in the past in terms of price, quality, delivery, continuity, and so on.
We have had a decade of rising unemployment. There would be more jobs today if the "Plan for Coal" had been fulfilled in all respects. In view of the public sector's failure to respond to earlier stimuli, I wonder whether the Minister should take out some insurance by announcing measures to give the small private sector greater confidence for the future and the opportunity to exploit profitably new sources and new markets which the National Coal Board cannot or will not do.
In the Bill the Government are giving an enormous injection of cash to the National Coal Board. If the patient does not show signs of a livelier performance, it will be a tragedy for every man, woman and child in the country who consumes energy and a betrayal of the taxpayers who have played their part in providing their share of the future opportunities for coal.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I welcome the Bill on behalf of the Social Democratic Party, and I personally pay tribute to the Minister's speech in introducing it. It was a sensible and realistic speech. Moreover, it was fair-minded, and to that extent, it was refreshing. It was doubly refreshing in that it came from a Minister at a Department of which the new head is reputed to be one of the most slavish adherents to the doctrines of the free market economy in their purest form. I do not know whether I do the Under-Secretary of State a disservice, but I take it that his speech, which represents the view of his Department and that of the Government, might denote a change towards greater social, political and even economic realism.
The Under-Secretary spelt out some of the problems that face the coal industry—they were spelt out in the board's annual report for the last financial year—stemming primarily from the present market weakness of the industry and the consequential need to stock coal, involving the cost of such stocking, and other extraneous matters such as interest rates, and so on. It is clear that steps must be taken if the industry is to keep within its external financing limits.
It was interesting to read in the annual report that the board was contemplating going to a banking syndicate. I do not know all the factors that lie behind that proposal, but it is fascinating because of the consequential long-term implications.
It is clear from the Bill that the coal mining industry is to have what I call a structured market economy. I suppose that is similar to what in the Federal Republic of Germany is called a social market economy. That is different from either the State command economy or what in my view is the outmoded free market economy. I am sure that no one would advocate the command economy. It is possible that some Conservative Members-indeed, some have already implied it-still advocate a market economy basis, even for the coal industry. However, anyone who studies the problems of the mining industry objectively will see at once that it is not responsive enough in the short-term to the application of a socially acceptable market economy.

mr. Tony Marlow: (Northampton, North)rose—

Mr. Ellis: I shall give way in a moment.
It is necessary to set limits and stick to them. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) is not present. He made a somewhat strident speech, but he did not say precisely what he wanted. The key question in setting limits and sticking to them is the judiciousness with which we set such limits and the time intervals between them. That is what I call the political fine tuning of the coal industry. If the hon. Member for Bedford believed what he said, it is incumbent on him in Committee to spell out in quantitative terms the precise limits that he would set and the time intervals between them within the structured market economy that I have described.

Mr. Marlow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I realise that he is looking hard for a hole in the middle—a distinct area of policy that he can latch on to in this as in other measures—but he should not give the West Germany economy as something that is between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, because the free market rules rather more in West Germany than it does here with a Conservative Government.

Mr. Ellis: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not understand what I am talking about. I was talking about what I specifically explained was a structured market economy. The structure will vary from industry to industry, especially when it involves substantial industries or sectors of industry. I do not appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
The fact that limits are set—the limits are to be adhered to, and the Government are rightly determined to stick to the limits, provided that they are properly set—implies that responsibilities fall not only on the Government, but on the National Coal Board and on the mineworkers. A number of hon. Members have mentioned the responsibility that has been shown over a number of years by mineworkers.
I want to refer to one aspect of the responsible approach of mine workers to the new or comparatively new wage payment settlements. I hope that I shall not be considered immodest if I say that the system which has been introduced is based on one that was used in a colliery with which I was associated over 20 years ago, and which at the time was anathema both to the union and to the NCB. Thus, it gives me particular pleasure. Of course, performance has improved. I am not sufficiently in touch with the industry to know whether the system of technical arrangements used in various collieries provides enough slack to be taken up to give increased productivity over the next few years. I doubt it—certainly not a sufficient increase to yield the productivity that we all wish.
If that is correct, we have to look to the only other alternative—capital investment. As I said earlier, I was intrigued to know that the Board was approaching banking syndicates. I understand that at present the board's self-financing is down to about 20 per cent. The annual report says that the Government's grants and subsidies in real terms are down about 13 per cent. compared with the previous year. I neither criticise nor approve that fact. I hope, however, that it reflects the use of the fine tuning, about which I spoke, to attempt to regulate a nationalised industry at arm's length. That is perhaps a hopeful approach. I am sure that it was difficult to work out the figure but, even so, I approve in principle, although the figure itself may be right or wrong.
The message that comes from the need to improve productivity by increasing capacity in a technical way by capital investment was spelt out by a number of hon. Members. In a nutshell, investment implies change in human terms. Over many years it has irked me to hear friends and colleagues arguing for greater investment in a range of industries and criticising people for not investing, while at the same time refusing to accept the human changes that are bound to result from the investment.
Reading the annual report for the previous financial year, I found great encouragement in the fact that the consequences of many years of substantial investment are now beginning to come through. For example, with modern coalfaces, slightly more than one-tenth of the deep mine output comes from under one-twentieth of the coalfaces. It means that 10.2 per cent. of the output comes from 4.5 per cent. of the coalfaces. In addition, one-fifth of the coalfaces are on the retreat mining system. That is an extraordinary achievement, which I am not sure that everyone appreciates. We should realise that there are 650 coalfaces, that this year 400 must be replaced, and that each has an average life of 18 months. That is equivalent, in modern manufacturing terms, to knocking down a factory, transporting it and reproducing and knocking it down again in one and a half years. The fact that one-fifth of the faces are on the new system, which is technically a better system and leads to higher productivity, is very heartening.
The trend is also beginning to reflect itself in that the output per man shift for new mines of about 4.25 tonnes is roughly twice the average for the coal industry. The pay-off is beginning to come through. Of the 160 major projects since plant recall, including five new mines. we can look forward to a successful future for the industry despite some of the gloomy prognostications that have been made by one or two Conservative Members. We can look forward-I shall welcome it when it comes-to what I call realistic pricing. The industry has suffered for many years because of unrealistic pricing, brought about more often than not by the capriciousness of political intervention. The principle of judiciously setting limits and keeping an arm's-length relationship cannot bode anything but good for the future of the industry.
Whereas in the past it was well known that one must run hard to stay in the same place in the mining industry—for many years running hard involved going backwards-we are now in a position for the first time for many years to run hard to make advances. The advances may be small in the first instance, but we can begin to see that there is a genuine future for the industry in increased competitiveness, assuming that we have responsible leadership by the Government, the NCB, the National Union of Mineworkers and the other unions in the industry.
I wish to add a word of thanks for the past services of both Sir Derek Ezra, whom I did not have the pleasure of knowing, and Mr. Gormley, whom I am proud to claim as an old friend.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As I am surrounded by many experts on the coal industry, I rise with a certain amount of, if not much, trepidation. We do not dig for much coal in Northampton, although we use it either directly or indirectly.
One reason why I wish to speak in the debate is that for one and a half years I was prospective parliamentary candidate for Normanton, in Yorkshire. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) spoke a few moments ago. That was one of the most satisfying and happy parts of my political career. It was a lovely constituency and they were the most friendly, direct and wonderful people. I look back on that experience with much pride, happiness and gratitude.
The Bill provides for grant payments to the coal industry. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State timorously whether he would consider the possibility of introducing an amendment that I believe would not only strengthen the coal industry but might eventually reduce the amount of money that we would wish to bring forward in subsequent Bills if not in this one.
If one stands back and considers from afar some of the characteristics of the coal industry, one is bound to notice that much public money is invested in it. We are talking about a possible limit of £4.5 billion, which may be increased by order to £5 billion. That is about £100 for every man, woman and child in Britain, or £400 for a family of four. We are talking tonight about a lot of money. If we compare the coal industry with the oil industry-which is in private hands-the oil industry does not ask for taxpayers' money. It pays a great deal into the public coffers through taxation. That leads me to ask whether there is anything that we can do, both for the benefit of Britain and the people who work in the industry, to go towards some privatisation, which is being considered by the Government in other area's of policy.
Another characteristic of the coal industry is that it is a monopoly which most right hon. and hon. Members would be prepared to do without.
We do not generally like monopolies and we have sound reasons for not doing so. First, there is more than a tendency—it is a proven fact—that with a monopoly the price increases and the customer does not get as good a deal as he might otherwise get. When we talk about coal, we talk also about energy and electricity and about prices being higher than they might otherwise need to be for heating.
The old-age pensioner, the one-parent family and the poorer members of our society are affected much more individually by energy prices as a proportion of their family budget than are richer members of society.
A monopoly is bad for the investor. If we are trying to get more funds into the coal industry, whether it is provided by the Government or by anyone else, one matter that investors will consider squarely is the return on their investment. I know that Opposition Members have been asking the Government to put forward even more money. I, too, wish that we could get more money forward, but I am not sure whether it should come from the Government.
I wonder whether, in the final resort, monopolies provide the best working environment and the best prospects for those who work in them. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) mentioned the conditions of employment and catering that are available in the oil industry on the North Sea oil rigs. He unarguably made the point that it was better than is available to hon. Members and to many people who work in the coal industry. If one considers new machinery and new

techniques, is there the same pressure in a nationalised monopoly as in private enterprise? I do not wish to press and alarm Opposition Members, because I know that there is grave concern—and rightly so—about safety in coal mines. If one is rushing for profit and private investment, there is concern that safety will suffer. I accept that point. Safety must be the first consideration.

Mr. Henderson: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for emphasising the importance of safety. Does he not agree that in airline travel, which could be hazardous and in which there is much competition, safety is assured despite the private enterprise system?

Mr. Marlow: I accept my hon. Friend's point, which helps my point. Safety is paramount, but I believe that one can achieve safety in coal mines without continuing to have a completely nationalised monopoly.
Another characteristic is the power of the mining industry as it is now set up. That power can almost override Government economic policy. When the miners voted to accept the pay offer that was put to them a few days ago, in many respects that was the most significant economic event of the past six months. The miners' decisions on pay have been seen to be vital to the national economy for a long time. Not only is there economic power, but in the past—although it is less likely to develop in the future—there has been overwhelming political power that has affected the ability of Governments to continue in office.
An important characteristic of the coal industry is the work force. When I was a candidate in Normanton I was impressed with the coal mining community. It was the time of the coal strike in February 1974. I spent much time discussing policies and politics with the community and I was impressed by their friendliness, independence, directness, patriotism, vigour and courage. I had spent time in the Armed Forces and I thought that the people working in the coal mines exhibited all the best characteristics of those I met in the Armed Forces and of the British people as a whole.

Mr. Eadie: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument about privatisation and his remarks about the wonderful people in Normanton. It seems that he wants to disturb the situation by aggravating and irritating them.

Mr. Marlow: I would not wish to do that. I shall advance my arguments. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not agree with them, but I shall not press a major case on that.

Mr. Henderson: During the 1974 general election, I was also a candidate in a mining area; only a stone's throw from the Cardowan pit. Does my hon. Friend recall that the miners then said that they recognised that under Conservative Governments they had done substantially better in their standards of living than they had done under Labour Governments? That recognition caused them anxiety when striking later that year.

Mr. Marlow: I hesitate to make a political point because I believe that that aspect applies to any work force. There is a tremendous spirit among those working in the mining industry, yet, as has been said twice during the debate, productivity in terms of output per man-shift is now the same as it was nine years ago. There must be


something wrong with motivation and organisation if these people have not, as they would have wished in the right circumstances, been able to achieve much better results.
I told the Minister that I should like him to consider—I said it gingerly and with a great deal of timidity—the possibility of bringing forward an amendment that would allow for the privatisation of part of the coal industry. Being specific, the Minister should take powers which would enable him to hand over individual coal mines and coal mining areas to those working in the industry. We have done that with the National Freight Corporation and it seems to have been popular with its workers.
I suggest that the Minister takes powers to say to those working in a coal mine "If you wish to, we will let you, the workers, have this mine—buy it from us or have it on lease. Some sort of financial mechanism can be devised. You will then be the owners, controllers and managers of your own pit. You will be the controllers of your own future. You will have your life and livelihood in your own hands and will be able to hire who you wish as managers of your pit. You will be able to go where you like to raise money for investment in your pit and decide how many people to have on any activity within it. You will be able to decide your future and life."
I do not say that the Minister should say that the miners must do that. All I say is that he should have the powers so that if any mine or group of them or area wished to take advantage of the opportunity he could deal with them accordingly. He does not have those powers now. If he had the powers, he would not be forced to use them. It would not cause any wrinkles, trouble or disruption if he had them. Such powers have been used with the National Freight Corporation and with other nationalised industries to a greater or lesser extent. Why not give the workers in the coal mining industry the same opportunities enjoyed by workers in other industries?
It will be said that the National Union of Mineworkers and, in particular, Arthur Scargill would have nothing to do with this idea and like the position as it is. On being elected recently by a large majority, Mr. Scargill argued that his workers should reject the National Coal Board's pay offer. In the event, the industry's workers had the good sense to accept that offer.
Workers at certain coal mines and other groups may wish to take advantage of an amendment if the Minister brings it forward. I earnestly beseech him to give the matter due consideration.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not wish to take much time, so I shall not follow far along the trail of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), save to say that if ever referendums become fashionable—I do not know whether they will—I doubt whether a referendum on that subject would receive much response in Normanton. Indeed, I would not recommend such a waste of public expenditure to provide the paper on which the question could be printed.
I join my hon. Friends in thanking the Minister for the Bill and to say to him, as the only neo-Keynesian on the Government Front Bench, that we appreciate his good fortune in the Secretary of State being so busy upstairs, pursuing his obsession to rob the nation of a substantial part of its oil and gas interests, that we have managed to see the coal industry escape a much harsher fate. We enjoy his good fortune and are glad that he has managed to please

the House today. I hope that the Bill can get through Parliament quickly and that, before the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill leaves the Standing Committee the Minister's right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, will not have an opportunity to carry his energy deprivations any more irresponsibly than he has.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and other hon. Members have referred to the delay over Belvoir. It is essential that we have a decision and that the Minister spells out to those who have complained and objected to the Blevoir proposal that very tight environmental protection will apply. Indeed, he could tell them that the environmental protection that will be available if and when the Belvoir project is approved will be much tighter than in any of the existing colliery and coalfield areas of Britain. I should like the advantages that will apply to Belvoir, if the Government have the sense to approve the scheme, to be extended to other areas with older collieries.
The closure of old pits is no novelty. On Sunday I went for a walk with my wife, boys and dogs for a couple of hours and we walked past five former colliery sites. Many people, including those in the locality, would not recognise four of the sites as having once been collieries. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay) will agree with me. In his constituency and mine there are probably about 200 former collieries.
Some collieries were very small in the eighteenth century. There has never been resistance to or a horror of closing, there is concern about unemployment. There is 27 per cent. unemployoment in the Dinnington area in my constituency and that should not be further increased. High unemployment has led to resentment in the coalfields. I think that all of them have above-average rates of unemployment. Closures, old capacity and exhaustion are inevitable. If we are to maintain the new investment and productivity about which Conservatives Members are so concerned, new orders and new developments are essential. Therefore, Belvoir is important. If the Under-Secretary of State is to address the House again, I hope that he will comment on that factor.
It would be churlish of me to refer to Belvoir and not to say that in Yorkshire there is substantial investment. At Maltby in my constituency approval has recently been given for the largest investment programme at any existing colliery. Orgreave is closed, but Maltby is to double its present capacity. It will contribute to the upsurge in productivity because of the new investment.
I resent the highly selective Conservative Central Office handout, which appears to present a rather peculiar assessment of the National Coal Board's productivity record. Apart from agriculture—I accept that agriculture is to be treated separately and as a superior achievement—no industry in Britain has exceeded the improvements in productivity which have been secured by the coal industry since the war. Often improvements have been made when rich and thick seams have been exhausted and the yield per yard of work has obviously diminished. I shall not go too far along that path, because I do not wish the Minister to be in any further difficulty with his hon. Friends.
I notice that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has returned to the Chamber. We are accustomed to the light-hearted speeches that the hon. Gentleman makes in every coal Bill debate. He has contributed to every one that I have attended since I entered the House in 1970. On


every occasion we have heard the hon. Gentleman's views. They are not always the same. He seems to perceive his error five years after he has perpetrated it and then he begins to shift ground. I hope that in about 1995—

Mr. Skeet: When Belvoir comes on stream.

Mr. Hardy: —he will realise what his view should be. By that time the holes in Bedford will have been filled by the spoil from the Belvoir coalfield. I do not suggest that he should eat the spoil, but I hope that he will be eating his words by then.
It has been said that our oil and gas reserves will begin to diminish in the 1990s. These reserves are puny compared with the coal reserves. Our North Sea oil output will begin to decline from about 1992 or 1993. Our gas output may begin to decline before then, especially if the Government have their way and encourage a rather more reckless use of gas than is wise and prudent. We have enormously greater reserves of coal.
I have been reading recently a quarterly journal which includes an article by Mr. Kenneth Moses, who is the director of the north Derbyshire area of the National Coal Board. Usually I do not like to refer to Derbyshire, but my constituency extends to the Derbyshire border and Mr. Moses' collieries in north Derbyshire sometimes cause subsidence in the Rother Valley constituency. I am grateful to him not so much for the subsidence as for the article.
In his article Mr. Moses observes that there were 250 billion tonnes of coal in Britain in seams which were at least 2 ft. thick with an ash content of below 40 per cent. and at no greater depth than 4,000 ft. That means that in theory we have an enormous amount of coal. Throughout our history we have taken or sterilised only 48 billion tonnes of coal. Much of that which remains cannot be extracted easily, or it may not be possible to extract it in the light of present and known technology. However, we have at least as much extractable or workable coal ahead of us as we have taken throughout the nation's history or which has been left sterilised.
Further investment will greatly improve the industry's capacity to win. Possibly we can go deeper. It may be that thinner seams will be more easily worked. Perhaps less even and geologically less certain seams will be able to be worked as the price of energy rises, as it will, despite temporary hiccups. At the same time, the incentive to develop new technologies will be that much greater.
For these reasons, the National Coal Board must remain the head of a viable industry. Our technology in the extraction, use and consumption of coal must develop. We have to rely on high technology for the future and it is vital that we remain at the forefront of mining engineering and relevant civil engineering industries. We are being given a better opportunity than perhaps we deserve, because, foolishly, the French and the Belgian industries have been contracted severely. Similarly, the German industry is shrinking. If their industries shrink, it is inevitable that their mining industries and other related industries will be affected. I do not want the British industry to be similarly affected. We must ensure industrial growth and job creation. That is why Belvoir is important and that is why the Bill is important.
The Government have an obligation to ensure that the industry succeeds for reasons not merely of social history but because someone has to provide a capacity to improve the environment in the mining areas. Recently the Members of Parliament representing coalfield areas met local authorities in Barnsley. The West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire and South Yorkshire county councils were represented. The Flowers report was considered. It was noted that some of the figures in the report may not be particularly accurate. I hope that the Minister has been made aware of the corrections.
The Government are becoming extremely worried about the cities because of the riots at Toxteth, Brixton and elsewhere. It worries me that the Government may be so afraid of the cities that they may decide to shift resources from the older industrial areas, which may not be entirely metropolitan conurbations in the city sense, to established cities.
We cannot expect the people in Yorkshire to accept high unemployment and reduced public spending if that means that the environment cannot be protected. The Minister will be aware that the position in Yorkshire is critical. Unlike all the other coalfield areas of Britain, Yorkshire is a net loser in the colliery spoil areas. I hope that the Minister will advise the NCB that after the slight improvement in its finances that he has provided it will be able to take a rather more helpful and generous view in its co-operation with the local authorities, will be able to stimulate and assist them in their work in reclamation and environmental improvement and be able to recognise that those who work underground need a decent surface area in which to live.

Mr. Allen McKay: I should like to comment on one or two of the points made by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) talked about colliery closures and said that not long ago there was a hit list of about 23 collieries. He said that 10 collieries had closed in the last 12 months, which is not too bad a rate of colliery closures, if they are needed at all. On that assessment, nearly half of those collieries have been closed, so we are half way towards getting things right.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) talked about the Tory pamphlet that refers to a subsidy of £35 per miner. If that £35 per miner is not paid, we would have to pay unemployment pay of about £47 with a loss in tax of £20 and national insurance contributions, which would be about £80 altogether.
I assure the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that the National Coal Board is an excellent employer. I have worked for it for about 40 years. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would get better machinery from a monopoly. The monopoly has made advancement possible in the coal industry. Later in my speech I shall refer to that advancement in the British coal mining industry, to the investment that we have been able to make abroad and to the opportunities that have been given to British industry because of the expertise of the NCB.
No debate on the coal industry could take place without a reference to the disaster at Cardowan, to which many hon. Members have referred. Our thoughts should not be far away from the injured and their families at this time. The coal mining fraternity can fully appreciate the


anxieties and feelings of all in the mining industry when such an incident occurs. More than most, I can appreciate those feelings because one of my duties when I worked on the industrial relations side of the NCB was to break to families the news following a fatal accident and to see as far as possible to their immediate welfare.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North brought out the fact, perhaps inadvertently, that when one miner bleeds, we all bleed, when a pit bleeds, all pits bleed and when the coal industry bleeds, the country bleeds. That is what makes the mining industry unique and different from any other industry. It is what unites the mine workers into a force that fuses together when under great stress.
The industry has three trade unions. One is the National Union of Mineworkers, to which I belonged and of which I was branch president. The second is the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers. I pay tribute to one of its leaders, Gilbert Fellowes, who died recently. Thirdly, there is the British Association of Colliery Management to which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) belong and of which I have been a member for 14 years.
The BACM, being an organisation of all political persuasions, has no sponsored Members of Parliament. It co-operates with the other trade unions in the industry 98 per cent. of the time, and when incidents, such as at Cardowan, occur, it co-operates 100 per cent. of the time. Therefore, I believe that I can safely say on behalf of all members of the BACM that we extend our deepest sympathy to all concerned and to all their families and that we wish the injured a speedy and full recovery.
When we last discussed the mining industry, the Minister said that he wanted a strong and viable industry. He has one. In my area of Barnsley the drift mines at Royston and Riddings regularly make new output records. South Kirkby is now a 1 million tonne pit. Grimethorpe, which is known as the sleeping giant, has now come alive. It produces so much coal there is not sufficient shaft capacity at Houghton to draw the coal out of the pit. Therefore, there are problems there, which we are overcoming.
That area was once virtually written off. Therefore, when people talk of colliery closures and the output of various pits, they should be careful about the way in which they approach the subject. There was a plan at one time to run down the area to four large pits.
John Kiers, the area director, arrived and gathered round him a team of specialists in higher management, expert planners and project engineers and built on the already good relations in the Barnsley area between the management and the trade unions. Each year the representatives of all the trade unions were brought to the headquarters so that they could be shown what was planned for the area. Each year they were informed how far that planning had proceeded and the results. They passed on that information to union level. That fostered further the spirit of co-operation.
The projects linked the mines in the area into three groups. A special drivage machine—one of only two in the world when we installed it—used the underground galleries on the west side of the area to link the collieries together. More convenient and conventional methods linked the other parts to make the mines into three major groups.
When the hon. Member for Bedford talked about investment in the coal industry and related it to output, I

said that that was wrong. The investment in the Barnsley area has been for the drivages to link together the collieries in more viable and profitable units and to build three large washery plants at Grimethorpe, Woolley and Houghton. All the products will come into those three plants. That means that we shall produce a better quality of coal. We shall be able to mix coals at any time to suit any customer. We shall be able to switch from coking coals to power station coals at any time. Therefore, the area has become one of the most viable areas in the NCB.
I shall quote the performance figures for the area to answer some of the criticisms of the NCB. The investment that Governments have ploughed into the NCB is now coming to fruition.
In 1976–77 saleable output was 7.3 million tonnes. In 1980–81 it rose to 8.2 million tonnes. In 1985 it will be 8.7 million tonnes. In 1976 there were 16,521 employees. In 1985 the manpower will be reduced to 14,300. Therefore, there will be greater production with a loss of manpower. The output per man shift in 1976 was 6.84 tonnes. In 1981 that will rise to 10.96 tonnes. The number of coalfaces dropped from 46 to 42. The annual proceeds are also interesting. In 1976, the proceeds were £140 million. In 1981–82, they will be £289.96 million—an increase of £149 million in that area alone. But there is a twist to the tale. Much capital investment has been poured into the industry, so the capital return will present a different picture. Nevertheless, the trend can be seen. In 1976, the total capital invested was £16.7 million, in 1980–81 it had risen to £17.6 million, and by 198.5 the increase will taper off at about £37 million.
On the profit and loss account, as a result of that investment in 1979–80, the area lost £28 million. By 1985, however, it will have come on stream again and will once again make a profit. Therefore, the whole area, which at one time was to be closed down, will be one of the most profitable areas of National Coal Board activity. Great credit must be given not just to the board but to every person working in the collieries for that effort, because only through that effort could such a result be achieved.
The possibility of a drive to the east from the Barnsley coalfield could also be investigated. It could drive from three of the major collieries straight to the east coast, opening up a great quantity of coal. Shafts could be sunk at Drax so that, without transport problems, coal could be transferred underground direct to power stations, and facilities could be made to run the dirt back to reclamation schemes on the east coast. There would then be a self-contained coalfield. It is a simple plan, and there must be some snags, but it should be looked at.
The National Coal Board has gone further east—to India. The interest in India ceased in 1965, but it has been rejuvenated, and the NCB has played a large part in creating the commercial opportunities that have arisen in India. It has introduced United Kingdom technology to India and advised on long haul mining which has led to the export of mining machinery and supplies from Britain. The equipment now being installed in those projects in India is almost wholly British. India has become interested in control equipment. The NCB leads in this area and is now training the future operatives of those mines. Training courses have been set up for management, strata engineers, mechanisation engineers, geologists and project planners.
India invited the NCB to plan two major projects—the Ashapani mine, which is a green field project, and the


Gusick mine, which is a major construction. The work was undertaken by some of my former colleagues from the Barnsley area—a team of specialists who, through training from the nationalised monopoly of the NCB, have acquired the expertise to deal with major projects. They are now in India. When the project comes to life, we hope that the interest generated will carry through to developing and advising the operation of the coalfield, thus opening further opportunities for Anglo-Indian co-operation and creating great commercial opportunities for the British mining machine industry. The House should congratulate the NCB on its efforts in making the project possible.
There is therefore a need for continued Government investment on a scale which some people have criticised. Without that investment, such a project would not be possible. Without that possibility, the team would not have been in India. Without that presence in India, the NCB could not present to Britain the commercial possibilities arising from the opportunity that it has taken and been able to exploit.
People ask what the NCB has done to make itself efficient. Between 1965 and 1981, 344 collieries closed and manpower was reduced by 261,200. As has been said, colliery closures are nothing new to the board or to the men themselves. Reference was made to people saying that they should work in water. Matters of that kind are taken care of by the men themselves. When it was decided that Rockingham colliery should close, the NUM fought to keep the colliery open—rightly, as that was the union's remit—but, as conditions worsened, the men themselves came to the view that enough was enough and that it was time for the colliery to close. They are sensible enough to know when a colliery is not viable.
The NEDC report of 6 November 1981 shows that Britain produces the cheapest produced coal in Europe. Aid to production is shown as £175 million in the United Kingdom, £182 million in Belgium, £281 million in France and £670 million in Germany. Social security aid in the United Kingdom amounts to £41 million, in Belgium £388 million, in France £817 million and in Germany £1,617 million.
The total figures are £233 million in the United Kingdom, £570 million in Belgium, £1,157 million in France, and £2,843 million in Germany.
The subsidy per tonne for the mining industries of those countries is £1.9 in the United Kingdom, £90.5 in Belgium, £64.3 in France and £30.4 in Germany. British coal is among the finest and cheapest in Europe. Cheaper coal is produced in Australia and sometimes in Poland. It would be wrong, however, to depend on imported coal because that will eventually cease.
Our coal industry has tremendous potential. Reference has been made to the 190 billion tonnes of coal in the ground, 45 billion tonnes of which can be extracted. The industry may have its problems, but running out of coal is not one of them.
The Minister referred to the future of the coal industry. Fluidised bed combustion, coal liquefaction, gasification, metallurgical fuels, pyrolysis and conversion schemes are all available.
It is important to know the future of the Vale of Belvoir coalfield, not because of the coal but because of the miners' jobs in the Leicester coalfields. The run-up to the development of the coalfield will take about 10 or 12

years. I understand that within 13 years there will be no collieries left in the Leicester coalfields. It is important, therefore, that development should start now.
There is a problem that I should like the Minister to investigate. The chairman of British Steel, Mr. MacGregor, has said that there is a problem with the quality of the coking coal supplied by the National Coal Board and that British Steel might need to obtain supplies from abroad unless the quality is improved. That would be a great blow to the North-East mining industry. Does the Minister know about this problem? If not, he should take up the matter with Mr. MacGregor to ascertain the extent of it.
The British coal industry has a great future. It is a vibrant industry and it is ready to take off. I am glad that the Bill provides the investment needed. I am sure that when we consider the subject again in 1984 there will be a different picture and a different coal industry. I am equally sure that we shall have problems then, but at least someone has come to the Dispatch Box and said that help will be given to the coal industry.

Mr. Tim Eggar: I shall not seek to emulate the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay) in his knowledge of the industry. My knowledge of mining comes mainly from opencast mining outside the United Kingdom. Everyone recognises the significant differences between opencast and underground coal mining techniques.
I join the hon. Gentleman in wishing the miners and their families involved in the recent pit disaster well. Such disasters are a tragedy to the mining community and to the whole country. The people of this country, despite the past 10 years of troubles and whatever feelings they may have as a result of that history, have a tremendous respect for the work of the miners. Anyone who tries to detract from that respect as, I feel, Conservative Members, in some ways, tried to do in 1974, does so at his own risk. There is an affinity with miners among British people, even those who live hundreds of miles from a pit. They have respect for those who have traditionally provided the economic strength of our country.
The hon. Gentleman also described the team approach that exists within the NCB among management and workers. I have been horrified on visits to mining sites in other parts of the world to find significant numbers of highly skilled managers and mining engineers who received their training from the National Coal Board and who have found, for one reason or another, that the career opportunities they want do not exist in their own country. I visited recently a nickel mine in Western Australia. Most of the miners and the mine management were former NCB employees. Several of the miners to whom I spoke—all were from the same area of South Wales—had gone to Australia to work at the mine when it opened 15 years ago for one simple reason. They told me that they had wanted an incentive to work. This they had found. A tremendous amount of importance at the nickel mine was placed on productivity performance and productivity pay, to a far greater extent than even now exists within the NCB.
I am not surprised that NUM members, when the facts have been put before them, have consistently voted for productivity payments. There is a feeling among miners that this is the direction in which the industry must move. With one or two possible exceptions on the Conservative


Benches, those hon. Members who take an active interest in coal debates are united by a belief in the future of the British coal industry. It is a belief held just as fiercely by Conservative Members interested in the subject as Labour Members, although perhaps for slightly different reasons—possibly for more harsh economic reasons rather than emotional reasons. I do not make that remark in any derogatory manner towards Labour Members.
We share a commitment to the coal industry. Conservative Members fight just as hard against the myopic reasoning of some of our colleagues as, I believe, Labour Members fight. I fight because I recognise that oil and gas, which are not providing the prosperity that they should, will represent only a temporary feature on the graph of our economic history and our energy development. Oil and gas will run out more quickly than many people might expect or realise.
When historians look back, perhaps in 100 years, they will say, I believe, that the two or three decades during which the mining industry of this country had to be massively subsidised were anomalous. I suspect that the tremendous profitability of the mining industry, on which this country's economic strength was founded at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of this century, will be repeated in the next century.
History will judge us to have made some appalling mistakes collectively—all of us, on both sides of the House, were responsible—in the 1940s, the 1950s and the early 1960s. But it will also judge that we began to realise the troubles that the country was getting itself into in the 1970s and to have made the commitment in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s to develop a strong and powerful coal industry.
What ha happened in the past 30 years has caused considerable problems for the industry. We are all aware of that. We are aware of the bitterness in the mining community, which saw its industry starved of funds and run down in a way in which no other industry in this country has been run down. The members of that community are understandably determined never again to allow themselves to be put into that position.
There is still a great need for flexibility to be shown by the National Union of Mineworkers and mining communities generally. If we examine the problems in the vast majority of the South Wales pits and those in other areas—Kent, Yorkshire and parts of Scotland—we must recognise, if we are honest, that the long—term future of those pits and communities is, to say the least, very uncertain. The Government must be able to create, I hope in a bipartisan way, an atmosphere that will enable the miners concerned to consider leaving the pits or, as is to be hoped, moving with as much of their communities as possible to the new pits that will assuredly be developed, in the Vale of Belvoir or elsewhere.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I repeat the Government's commitment to the coal industry. This year alone £550 million will be given to the National Coal Board in grants. That is £35 per week per employee of the NCB. Nobody in the industry can detract from that figure, which represents a considerable commitment.
It is worth recording the figures of total capital expenditure over the past three years: 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Government, £454 million; 1979–80, £617 million; and 1980–81, £736 million. The amount approved for the next financial year is £805 million. That, too, is a considerable commitment.
As the Government have made that commitment, the least that can be expected is that the other side of the bargain will be kept. Labour Members who know much more about the domestic industry than I do will acknowledge that "Plan for Coal" called for closures of around 4 million tonnes of capacity a year. In the three years during which "Plan for Coal" was operative under the Labour Government a total of just under 4 million tonnes was closed—a third of what had been expected under the plan.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) was upset at some of the remarks about the productivity performance in the industry. It is not very impressi%e when we see that in 1980–81 productivity per man shift was about 2.3 tonnes and that that was below the productivity per man shift in 1972–73, after a massive injection of capital investment. The trend is definitely in the right direction. The acceptance of productivity payments, and so on, is moving things in the right direction. But all of us who are committed to the coal industry have to be aware that it is a reciprocal arrangement, and we have to continue getting productivity agreements and improvements in productivity if we are to be able to justify the kind of sums that are being committed from the public purse because there are always competing claims.
I am sure that I am not alone among hon. Members in having had extensive lobbying from energy—intensive industries. The one area which the Government have been able to do very little about is that of electricity prices, because the generation of electricity in this country is basically 80 per cent. reliant on coal, and coal is expensive compared with continental methods of generating electricity.
Vis-à-vis people employed in the energy—intensive industries, electricity costs are high and that is partly —I accept only partly—because of the high cost of coal. But we are making the investment and we are getting the productivity increases, so that in time we can hope to move towards more competitive coal—fired electricity generation. That leaves aside the argument about moving to nuclear energy, to which I am also committed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) commented on a plan, obviously dear to his heart, to pass the pits over to the miners—a miners' cooperative. There are clearly certain attractions in that route. We are aware of some very small independent operators who operate extremely profitably, employing fewer than 30 people, and whose employees seem to be very happy with the circumstances of their employment. But I look to the other end of the spectrum. It has always seemed crazy to me that some of the companies which are making the biggest commitment to coal world—wide are British companies—for example, BP and Shell. Tremendous funds are going into coal development. Yet here in their home territory, not for any illegal reasons but for obvious industrial relations reasons, they are unable to develop fields as they would like.
I share the belief that, whatever else happens, we must press ahead with the development of Belvoir. That is absolutely essential. We have finished considering the environmental arguments and I accept the strength of feeling of those who believe that that beautiful part of the country should not be disturbed, but I hope that the Government will at least examine the possibility of considering whether the NCB could go into some form of joint venture with one of the major coal companies. I have


BP particularly in mind. It would be a very significant capital investment. It would be using different up-to-date mining techniques on a scale that has not yet been seen, with the possible exception of Selby, which, however, has a number of important geological differences. I would hope that there would be cross—fertilisation and the addition of capital from private sector participation. I trust that the Minister will encourage the NCB at least to explore the possibilities. At the same time, he should assure the NUM and the other mining unions that this is not part of a plan to privatise the whole of the NCB but an attempt to introduce another angle and area of expertise into the development of a major mine. The accretion of capital from the private sector might allow the mine to be developed at a faster rate.
I make one comment on the mining supply industry. We probably have unmatched expertise in the development of underground mining machinery and ancillary equipment. One problem has been that the companies involved, for reasons that I have never fully understood, have not been willing to export as aggressively as one might have hoped, especially in view of their tremendous technological lead and advantage. This has undoubtedly partly been because they have been tied to the NCB purchasing patterns, design specifications and so on. They have traditionally geared their output and work force to the likely requirements, as they have seen them, of the NCB.
The position has now changed. There has undoubtedly been considerable concern in the mining supply industry about the lack of orders from the NCB. With the recession, over the past year they have become a great deal more aggresive overseas. It is a problem or all suppliers to nationalised industries—British Rail, the British Gas Corporation and so on. There is an unfortunate tendency for too cosy a relationship to develop with their major and in many cases only customer. In too many cases there has not been enough emphasis placed on exporting, getting away from NCB specifications and requirements, looking at the demand for mining equipment world—wide and developing products suitable not only for the domestic industry.
The situation is now changing quite fast. Unfortunately, the change has come a little too slowly for us to take advantage of the tremendous increase in investment in underground mines in the United States. The pace of investment has slowed over the past year because of the fall in coal prices.
I welcome the Bill. It is a tremendous commitment by the Government to the future of the coal industry. It is up to all hon. Members and both sides of the mining industry to make sure that this act of faith by the Government reaps dividends for us all.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I am usually complimentary to hon. Members who precede me, but I must tell the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) that to come in at the last minute and make a speech of 20 minutes is pushing the boat out a wee bit. He is testing the good temper of hon. Members who have waited a long time.
That is not to say that I have been in the Chamber for the whole debate. I apologise to the Under—Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian

(Mr. Eadie): For good reasons which I do not wish to detail, I missed their speeches and the first Back—Bench speeches.
I, too, welcome the Bill. Although I missed the opening speeches, I believe that everyone is broadly in favour of the Bill.
I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the NUM. In addition to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian three others of my colleagues who have spoken are also sponsored Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian always enjoys the cut and thrust of our debates on the coal industry, and like me looks back on past debates on this subject.
It is said that we need a new "Plan for Coal", new incentives and a new directive. I look back on the previous plans with wry amusement. Had the forcasts and plans envisaged for the mining industry, including those of my party, come to pass, we should be in a sorry state. We can look back on past follies. Whatever short—term advantages various proposals offer, we must remember that our overriding interest is to have a prosperous and viable mining industry. The industry will be a storehouse of riches in the future, as it has been in the past.
Once there were about 30 mining Members in the House. When I first became a Member there were 27. Sadly, there are now only 16 or 17. We have none from South Wales, although there used to be seven. I believe that there is no mining Member now from Durham and only one from Northumberland. However, we are reinforced by colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), who, although not a miner, has mining in his veins. It is something that people take in with their mother's milk. In the area, if people are not miners, they are the sons, grandsons or brothers of miners. A great deal of expertise and knowledge are brought to our debates. Although the number of miners in the House is dwindling, the common sense continues.
The development of the Vale of Belvoir is important. The birds whisper that the public inquiry is in favour of development but that there is organised resistance to it from the Tory Benches. I pay tribute to the mining lobby, but it may have something to learn from the organised lobby of agricultural interests. That is no more powerful lobby. The whisper is that the Minister will contradict the inspector's findings. We want an announcement soon. The national interest must not be overridden by sectional interests. Some people believe that mining development in somewhere like Ince is all right but not in pretty rural areas like the Vale of Belvoir. Our coal is, unfortunately, exhausted.
Private development has been mentioned. There is nothing to stop a person from developing a pit, although it cannot have more than about 30 people working in it. In my constituency there used to be a field full of "day eyes" as we call them in Lancashire. They have nearly all gone. I helped one man develop a small mine after one or two he previously owned became exhausted. Such private owners face the same problems as the larger mining industry. They need capital to overcome the geological problems, but they are not able to do so. If people wish to develop with private capital there is nothing to stop them, but they need a licence and cannot employ more than a certain number of people. Even so, they still face considerable difficulties and it is a risky business.
I return to the Vale of Belvoir. The impression will be given that the long—term national interest is being overridden in the Vale of Belvoir. According to the plan, coal will not be produced until 1995. It will be claimed that coal should not be produced in such areas. I do not know whether it is designated an area of outstanding beauty, but it is obviously a pretty, rural area of the country. We need an answer from the Minister, if not tonight, as quickly as possible. It has to be understood that mining does not take place only in the less beautiful parts of the country. The national interest must be paramount, and the people in the mining industry and elsewhere will take it badly if the Minister ducks this issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) summed up when he said that we are all environmentalists to a certain extent, but there is a practical application as well. He rightly quoted the record of the opencast executive, which not only restored land to its previous state, but in many cases improved it. He will know that on the border between our constituencies there was an opencast mining area. The old landowner told me that he fought to the bitter end to stop an opencast development of about 700 acres in what he considered to be an area of outstanding beauty in an area that does not have many. He told me that he was glad that he had lost and wished that there had been another 1,000 acres to develop, because not only had there been a magnificent job on restoration, but the quality of the land was improved.
Let us not run away with the environmental issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan is right. There must be a practical side to this and I believe that the fears of environmentalists, understandable though they are, are unfounded. The NCB has great technology to restore land and improve it. A famous Labour politician once asked, "Why gaze in the crystal when you can read it in the book?" Well the book can be read in Selby. Nobody could argue that mining there has despoiled and disfigured the land.
I hope that the Minister will take on board the problem of commuted compensation for pneumoconiosis, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts). The sum of about £7 million that has been set aside could be called a contingency fund. In answer to a request from Lawrence Daly, the secretary of the NUM, the NCB said that, without being too unkind to the person who answered for it, there is a legal quibble. There seems to be an element of legality, in that commuted cases occur when a sum is settled for and the claimant puts himself out of court for any further prospects for damages in other settlements.
Since 1948 the cases could not be settled on a commuted basis because even if an assessment of less than 20 per cent. was taken as a lump sum payment there was always the avenue of unforeseen aggravation to re—open the case. Under the old compensation scheme, the settlement made is for ever. That has caused some disquiet and concern in the union. It is asking for a modest measure so that it can tap into the fund, which according to the NCB can be granted only by the Government.
We have talked of large sums today. I am talking about a relatively small sum. It will not assuage the human suffering of the widows, but we know that money can be something of a compensation. Quite often such cases are settled on the basis of how much money is given, and all that we require is a relatively small sum. This will reinforce the feeling that the Government, the union and

the NCB wish to cement. They have common interests that they are seeking to satisfy. Having read the correspondence, I should like the Minister to take that point on board.
I referred earlier to the many debates that we have had on the mining industry. It is a unique fact that all hon. Members who represent miners' interests have worked in the mines. In our post—salad days we may look more prosperous than we used to—perhaps some of us are even chubbier—but we have all worked in the mines and we know what it is like to be "buggered" about trying to earn a living on piecework.
I am grateful for the fact that even in my short time in the House there have been tremendous changes in the mining industry, which have all been for the better. I entered the House in 1964 at the time of the power loading agreement. At that time the miners' wage was about £25 or £27 a week. There was tremendous uproar from people who did not know the industry over the fact that the miners intended to use their industrial muscle to try to get a better agreement. There used to be individual price lists, but they then went into a national scheme.
is its solidarity. I remember that when we were discussing the so—called wage structure and trying to get improvements in the industry someone said that the miners were using their muscle to bring down the Government. As the Government were reminded in 1974 by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), they brought it on themselves, because when they went to the country and asked "Who rules the country—the miners or the Government?" Wilberforce gave them their answer. Conditions in the mining industry at that time were so terrible, given the modern conditions and wages in other industries, that it was laughable. Wilberforce was staggered to find that the Nottinghamshire miners, located in a prolific coal—producing area, were willing to accept almost no increase for several years so that their colleagues in less prolific coal—producing areas could have a share of the cake. That reinforces and demonstrates the solidarity in the mining industry.
An hon. Member said that it was terrible to put men down the pits, although I do not suggest that he used the recent explosion in the Scottish colliery as justification for that. Another of his hon. Friends referred To men burrowing underground and thought that that was terrible.
When I was pit secretary, I organised visits to various outside industries. On one occasion we went to the Ford motor company at Halewood. We saw how a car was produced. A sheet of metal moulded on a press went through a sophisticated machinery and emerged as a car. When we had a cup of tea and a bun with the plant manager he told me "Well, Michael you have some bonnie lads here and I would like to employ some of them". Although he was short of men and the wages were much better, he did not get a volunteer. The men said that, for a variety of reasons, they would sooner work in the pits. The conditions in the pits are much better now than they were when I left the industry, and in so far as further improvements can be made I am sure that the national executive at the NUM will try to make them.
This is a good Bill, which paves the way for future investment in the industry. I hope that the Minister, whose speech I missed, will reinforce his commitment to a viable and prosperous coal industry. I welcome the Bil to that extent.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall be brief. I had not intended to speak in the debate, but having—unlike some hon. Members—sat through the debate and listened to Conservative Members, I thought that I should like some assurances from the Minister about certain speeches—notably those of the hon. Members for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) and Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
Like many of my hon. Friends, I spent 40 years in the mining industry. In the short time that I have had the privilege to be a Member of Parliament, I have realised what little knowledge Conservative Members have of the practical side of the mining industry. That is very worrying when hon. Members are able to legislate for that industry.
I said that I would be brief because, in my early days in the mining industry, if a young man went on the coalface and spent a lot of his time "chit chatting", the old colliers would say "Don't speak when you've nothing to say, lad. You'll need all your breath down here." I realise that some hon. Members did not receive similar advice in their younger days. This might have been a better House if they had done so.
I was pleased to hear the kind comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the miners and the mining industry. I fully appreciate that they have come from sincere minds. However, I was alarmed at the reference made by the hon. Members for Fife, East and Northampton, North to the privatisation of the mining industry. The House has a right to some answers tonight. Miners in my constituency and throughout Britain will want some answers. It has been accepted that miners are trustworthy and responsible. They never allow themselves to be led by the nose, as has been proved recently. Their word is their bond and they expect the same of everyone else.
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Northampton, North regarding privatisation. I hope that his answer will be in the negative. However, there are rumours going around and sparks are being set off. Some Tory Members believe that certain profitable parts of the industry should receive the same treatment as the oil and gas industries are about to receive.
Do the Government intend to introduce a Bill to privatise certain sections of the mining industry? If so, the miners will want to know. I suggest that the Government will be very foolish if they attempt to deceive them. The miners will not tolerate being deceived.
The hon. Member for Fife, East said that miners had been objecting to pit closures for the past 20 years. How wrong could he be? Twenty years ago, I was employed by the NCB as a manpower officer in north Yorkshire when the mining industry was being raped. I spent much of my time in the Scottish and northern coalfields recruiting for Kelliney colliery. Families did not welcome the upheavals that resulted from such closures, but they acted responsibly and appreciated the difficulties. Looking back, I often think that some of the decisions were wrong, but those involved did not create upheavals or scream for industrial action.
Despite the massive pit closure programme and all the social upheaval and hardship, I am not aware of any industrial action in the mining industry during those 20 years. I often saw people in Scotland and in the North who were torn by the decision whether to go. They could not

decide whether to leave their mothers alone or to take their kids from school half—way through their education. Such decisions are not easy, but they had to be made. Miners acted responsibly and will continue to do so. They have a right to know about the future of their industry and whether the Government intend to privatise part of it.

Mr. Eadie: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) should not apologise for speaking in the debate. As a result of his experience in the industry, he has enriched it. Opposition Members have great knowledge of the industry because they have worked in or been associated with it. From that point of view, the debate has been good.
I regret that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is not in the Chamber. He raised a very old Aunt Sally, as if it was a new idea. I hope that he will read Hansard, because someone now resident in the Treasury once introduced a private Members' Bill to, as the slogan said, "Give the pits back to the miners". I once had a slight altercation with the Duke of Edinburgh, because I described the idea that he was then pedalling as crazy. The more the proposition is examined, the more clear it becomes that given the world we live in—and, as the Minister said, the marketing and expertise needed—it does not make sense.
That slogan wass born of compassion, not reality. Sir Gerald Nabarro used to say that we would get nothing for the pits and that we could give them back for nothing. In that era, people believed that coal was finished and that it had no contribution to make to our energy requirements. We now know that that is nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) will remember the days when we stressed that to pursue that policy would be to embark on social and economic madness.
I come now tothe subject of privatisation. To some extent, I am pleased that it has been raised, but I am not pleased that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) should speak to a Conservative brief which is out of date and in which the figures are wrong. People are now beginning to understand that the mining industry can be profitable and lucrative. They say "If it is profitable and lucrative, let us introduce privatisation, because it will mean a fast buck for some people". We have demolished the argument that the mining industry is getting a subsidy. We pointed out that the coal industry has to pay interest on the money that it borrows. So the argument about privatisation is nonsense, in that people are saying "We have peace and tranquillity in the industry and we do not want to disturb it. We do not want to antagonise the miners by introducing privatisation, which miners and their unions would bitterly resent".

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in response to an intervention by one of his hon. Friends, I said that I was not advocating taking anything away from the NCB. Rather, I said that there was a possibility that other people would also invest in the future of the industry.

Mr. Eadie: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman was looking at the "lolly" lying around and advocating restricting public investment by saying "Private investment can have that 'lolly—. The hon. Gentleman, in an


intervention in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), told the story about the miners in Normanton who were so good and loyal to the Conservative Government, but the hon. Member for Northampton, North lost the election there. The hon. Member for Northampton, North should not listen to political advice from his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East.
One of the arguments in the debate related to the Vale of Belvoir. We should remember, in discussing the time scale involved, that by the time it starts it will be perhaps 10 years hence, and that in those 10 years, as the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) said, the United Kingdom sector of North Sea oil will start to diminish. The investment is needed now, because the peak of North Sea oil for us as an indigenous resource will be past.
The same argument can be applied to liquefaction. The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) said that he was watching the Point of Ayr "like a hawk". He had better do so, because arguments for liquefaction are being advanced by people who advanced he same arguments in the 1970s, an even in the 1960s. At that time the argument was "Just let's wait. If we need that technology, we shall buy it". They concentrated on denigrating British technology.
When we talk about liquefaction we are talking about two British invented processes which received world—wide recognition, despite what the scientists at the Department of Energy may say. Sasol is a successful concern in South Africa, but it is a wasteful process. The precesses that we invented by our own genius should be developed by us to assist the whole of Britain's technology. We are not talking about going commercial; we are talking about pilot plants. The sooner we start the pilot plants, the sooner we shall be in a position to decide the commercial road that we are to take, and might even manage to sell some licences. I repeat that by the time we get to that stage, the peak of North Sea oil production will be past. So it is important to plan for the future.
I promised the Minister that I would give him as much time as he wished to reply and I made a long opening speech, so I shall be brief. Many valuable and constructive points have been raised in the debate. Many of them can be dealt with in Committee. That is the appropriate place for them. However, the Minister will be pleased with the response to the Bill. To some extent, hon. Members are responding to him because of the speech that he made in arguing his party's case. It is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has made a good speech. In Committee on the Energy Conservation Bill, the hon. Gentleman made as good a speech in arguing his party's case as I have heard.
We welcome the Bill. We shall address ourselves to the details in Committee, but I assure the House that we shall in no way delay its progress. We wish it to have speedy acceptance so that the industry may make the progress to which the Minister referred in his speech.

Mr. John Moore: We have had a wide debate and I join the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) in saying that those of us who are interested in the success of the coal industry believe that the debate has had an excellent tone. I thank, almost with embarrassment, those on both sides of the House who have been kind enough to make any personal references to me. I regard those kind references as applying also to the coal industry, with which I am

privileged to have my present position. 1 shall try to cover as many points as possible in the time allowed and I hope that many other points will be considered in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair—Wilson), who is unable to be with us now arid apologises to the House, made an excellent speech, as he always does in coal industry debates, and asked many questions about the potential to improve the long—term marketing of coal. We must all address ourselves to that question, because of the potential over—supply of coal. Two of his points about price guarantees and availability of supply can be developed later, although I draw his attention to the fact that the price differential in favour of coal is probably the best for generations. It is in all of our interests to maintain that relationship.
The availability of supply, beyond the simple practical suggestions that my hon. Friend made about the National Coal Board, to which I shall draw its attention, is something about which we should be concerned when we discuss the possibility of business men trying to make long—term decisions about introducing coal into their fuel patterns. Container usage was an interesting new suggestion to which I am sure we look forward to discussing in Committee.
The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Do—mand) mentioned the size of the pit closure grants under the relevant clause. That is essentially related to the improved terms, but obviously he will wish to develop the point and I can pursue it in more detail in Committee.
Joined by his hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and for Normanton (Mr. Roberts), the hon. Gentleman also raised some points about the Flowers report, with specific reference to Yorkshire. The Government are aware of the importance of the report. let alone the price at which it was published. I remind the House that the report was published on 30 September 1981, and that the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Energy, Scotland and Wales stated jointly that they welcomed the report. They said that they would give the study their careful consideration and publish a response to the recommendations in due course.
My right hon.Friends invited the organisations that gave evidence, other interested organisations and the general public to make comments. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) told the House that his area has taken up that invitation and is pursuing it in detail. Over 50 organisations have commented so far and others are known to be about to respond or are in the process of responding. The Government will take all those views into account. It is an extremely important document which bears close attention by all those who are interested in the coal industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) made a thoughtful speech. 1 tried in my opening speech to express my understanding of the dilemmas that face us all in trying to examine the longer—term pattern and programme for the industry. My hon. Friend mentioned the extraordinarily good industrial relations in the industry. That is something that those outside the industry do not understand and it is a point that cannot be made enough times during coal industry debates.
Many hon. Members referred specifically to the coal—fired boiler scheme or the coal conversion scheme, and the hon. Member for Easington asked a specific question. The


applications that have been received amount to £17 million and so the scheme is even more limited than some might have thought from what I said earlier.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), for New Forest and for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and the hon. Members for Easington and for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) all said "It is a good starter, but we need a lot more and we need it to be developed further and faster. There should be extensions to the scheme."
I listened with great care to their comments but the scheme is the Department of Industry's responsibility. The Department of Energy is clarifying the issues for it and it will make an announcement in due course. The questions raised in the debate will be brought home to it by those who wish to see added coal burn.
The hon. Members for Midlothian, for Wigan, for Rother Valley, for Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Ince (Mr. McGuire), and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), for Bedford, for Melton (Mr. Latham), for Exeter and for Newark all mentioned the Vale of Belvoir inquiry. Whatever I would wish to say at the Dispatch Box about timing, I must draw the attention of all Members to the fact that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. My right hon. Friend is considering the report of the inspector who conducted the public inquiry into the National Coal Board's proposals. He will announce his decision as soon as possible. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who mentioned this matter made it clear that I should bring this matter to the attention of all those concerned.
Many hon. Members mentioned liquefaction. The hon. Member for Midlothian rightly drew attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) is watching the issue like a hawk. That is more than the truth. My hon. Friend ensures that he pursues his constituents' attitudes as well as the coal industry's attitudes on this issue.
The hon. Member for Easington raised an issue which was answered partially by the hon. Member for Midlothian. It was slightly unfortunate that he sought to compare the type of advanced technology development potential that is seen in advanced liquefaction processes with that of the Sasol process in South Africa which is very different in capital and coal cost content and radically different in terms of energy efficiency.
However, I recognise that the hon. Members for Midlothian and for Easington and my hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest have a legitimate interest in raising the matter.
With respect to the hon. Member for Midlothian, who has a fine history and record of support for the research activities and development of the coal industry, I greatly regret that one of the senior civil servants in my Department has been referred to again. My colleagues and I have full and absolute confidence in the chief scientist at the Department of Energy. His advice to Ministers, based on a wide background of process engineering, is very relevant to coal conversion. He has gained our greatest respect. I shall go on to say what is important and relevant to the debate about liquefaction and its future and, as the hon. Member for Midlothian rightly said, the future of the pilot development—not the long—term potential for commercial development but development of the pilot.
The Government have never swerved from their commitment to the board's oil—from—coal project. In May last year we announced, in a detailed debate, support of £5 million for the cost of construction and commission of a pilot facility. A decision to concentrate on a single process facility, based on liquid solvent extraction technology, was then made by the board in the light of commercial interest. We fully accept the board's decision. We committed funds to extend the process design studies and we agreed to pay 53 per cent. of the cost of a three—month proving run on the small scale equipment at the board's coal research establishment.
The written answer I gave the other day to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant) shows how incorrect one can be. That was an indication of the process advancing. This run was carried out in the September—December period last year to test the performance of the liquid solvent extraction process in conditions comparable with commercial activity. The results of this proving run have been encouraging in showing satisfactory catalyst life and further tests will be carried out this spring with Government support to assess process changes and also to confirm the performance of different coals.
In addition to support from this Department and the European Community, the NCB is holding discussions with the private sector—I have said all this before—with a view towards its financial support and participation in the project. It is no secret that British Petroleum and Phillips Petroleum are interested in the process. BP participated in the proving run last year and made a valuable, technical and financial contribution. Both BP and Phillips are considering support for this further proving run which should provide the information they require before a decision to support construction of the pilot plant can be taken.
The board has a full rein in the negotiations to form an industrial consortium to manage the project. The Government believes that the commercial discipline and technical experience of private industry is vital to the success of the project, and we endorse and encourage such participation.
As I understand it, a good working relationship exists between the board and its prospective partners and I am more than satisfied with the progress being made. Mistakes in this form of development could be very expensive indeed, and I believe that we have struck the right balance to reduce the risk attendant in a project of this nature.

Mr. Eadie: rose—

Mr. Moore: I am content to give way, but I wish to answer as many of the points raised as possible.

Mr. Eadie: I expect the Minister to defend his departmental officials. He knows that I have seen a paper from the chief scientist and others which, to some extent, leads me to believe that the chief scientist was not all that enthusiastic about the project.
Secondly, the Minister must be aware—I hope he will answer this point—that the NCB has dropped the other plant or scheme because of the lack of funds. There has been a delay of two and a half years by the Government on this. The Minister cannot argue that there has been great expedition by the Government.

Mr. Moore: There is no point in pursuing matters beyond the points I made. I tried to put on record the position as it is. I am not in the habit of reading documents that I do not believe carry the truth.
The hon. Member for Wigan, in an extremely thoughtful, instructive and helpful speech, spoke about a similar area of research and development in the coal industry. Essentially he asked to what extent I, as the Minister responsible, had had experience in this area. I, like the hon. Member for Midlothian, who started the tripartite research and development working party, picked up and continued that process with a series of extensive and regular meetings examining all methods of development prospects for coal utilisation and unconventional mining. Beyond that, I have sought to visit all the liquefaction gasification potential projects in, for example, the United States and West Germany over the past two and a half years or more. I made extensive visits to Bretby and Stoke Orchard.
There is no question about the interest not just in my Department but within the whole coal industry in the whole area of advanced coal utilisation techniques. I welcomed the tone and tenor of the constructive remarks made by the hon. Member for Wigan.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bedford and New Forest raised the subject of in situ gasification. I visited some of the in situ gasification test areas in Colorado more than a year ago to look at the slanted bed in situ gasification work. The NCB advanced mining evaluation unit at Bretby is maintaining contact with the underground gasification trials in the EEC and the United States. The board is considering a report. The unit at Bretby is examining the prospects for underground gasification in the United Kingdom. Considering the levels of evolution as a layman, there seems to be a long way to go.
The hon. Members for Ince and for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) raised the subject of pneumoconiosis commuted cases. I am conscious of the importance of that issue and of the details. I have been in direct contact with Lawrence Daly, the general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, who has written to me on that point. The question of eligibility for benefit under the NCB pneumoconiosis compensation scheme of the men who commuted their claims for compensation under the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act in return for a lump sum was raised. I am sure that it is realised that pneumoconiosis compensation is a complex area. We shall look carefully at the question in conjunction with the NCB. I fully recognise and understand the points made by the hon. Members, whatever the exact legal position. I assure them that I shall look at the matter with great sympathy.
In an interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West talked of subjects that were not directly connected with the coal industry, but in reply to his strategic argument I can tell him that my Department has a number of officials whose primary concern is the development of the Community energy policy. The United Kingdom plays an active part in the formulation of EEC energy policy as a Community member with the greatest resources and expertise in energy. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend will be content with those remarks. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
A point was raised almost extraneously, although it was connected with the debate, by the hon. Member for

Easington (Mr.Dormand), who has been legitimately belabouring me for a while, because we are talking about the greater uses of coal. He has been asking about the way in which further railway electrification would increase our use of coal and reduce our oil usage. Substituting electricity for oil would result in an increase of three quarters of 1 per cent in electricity demand if the maximum electrification programme could be put into action. That was published in the report of the review on main line electrification, which suggested that an extra 1–8 terawatt hours of electricity consumption would be produced, which would be translated into the not inconsiderable sum of 1 million extra tonnes of coalburn a year if all the electricity was generated from coal. I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman receives the details.
I shall refer to two other main matters. I apologise to hon. Members whose points I have not been able to deal with. I shall return to them in Committee or I shall write to them before the Committee stage begins, depending on when it assembles, which is not in my hands. The first the hon. Member for Midlothian legitimately raised as a main factor in the nature of our examination of coal—the relativity between the subsidies given by the British Government to the coal industry and those given by foreign Governments, specifically Belgium, France and West Germany. The hon. Members for Easington and for Penistone also raised that point and developed it at length.
I am not sure that those who constantly ask us about the continental level of subsidies have thought through the facts of the inevitable change and decline that I see occurring in the industries that are being subsidised and in the way in which they are subsidised. The hon. Member for Easington drew our attention to the way in which the subsidies were varied in kind. The Bill, with the general welcome that it has received from the House, gives substantial grant subsidies. I shall make the following points about the character of the subsidies to which the continental coal industries have become accustomed.
First, I draw the attention of hon. Members who are interested in the long—term future of coal to the figures for 1981—they are approximate, as they are a first estimate—for the comparative coal investment in the countries concerned. In that year, £27; million was invested in Belgium, £34; million in France, £265 million in the Federal Republic of Germany and £698 million in the United Kingdom. The point that I am trying to make, and have tried consistently to make in a non—partisan fashion, is that the character of the subsidies must be examined. The United Kingdom is the only country, with Germany very much in second place, which has a major commitment to investment in the future of the coal industry. That key distinction in the nature of the investment must be borne in mind by all hon. Members who share the genuine, non—partisan interest in the future of the coal industry that has been shown in today's debate.
Secondly, the nature of those coal industries must be considered. After all, there are 39 pits in West Germany, 21 in France and six in Belgium, compared with about 211 in the United Kingdom. The point that attaches to that—and this is common ground in coal debates—is that we respect the productive work carried out by miners in Britain and we understand why they are at the top of the industrial wage league. That is not the case in countries that have stagnant or declining coal industries. In West Germany, for example, miners receive only just over the average industrial wage and collieries are unable to get


young Germans into the mining industry. That important reality should be understood when we discuss comparisons.
Thirdly, those countries have now reached the point where imports dominate coal consumption. In Belgium, 63 per cent. of coal is imported. In France the figure is now 61 per cent., compared with only 26 per cent. 12 years ago. Moreover, West Germany, which has major plans for increasing its domestic coalburn, also has major plans for increasing coal imports. I submit that that is not the route that those of us who are concerned with our coal industry would wish to follow, and it is not the route that I assume we shall take if we continue to manage our coal industry well within the strategy that we have been discussing today.
I touch on one last major item. The hon. Member for Midlothian, with his background and experience in the matter, rightly drew attention to the nature of future investment in the coal industry and the structure and strategy of the industry. Again, I was delighted at the tenor of so much of the debate, reflecting the way in which many of us who try to take a longer view of the industry can see what has actually occurred since 1974.
I make just three points. The view is legitimately expressed by many people that more investment is needed. The pattern established in the 1974 massive investment programme and confirmed in the Labour Government's 1979 White Paper involved a peaking of capital investment in the coal industry by 1980–81, followed by a modest dip and a continuing plateau. How long the plateau will continue is a debatable question which I hope will be discussed in Committee, but it is interesting to see how the pattern has been retained in the way in which investment has continued.
As requested by some of my hon. Friends, and because I considered it relevant to a longer view of the coal industry investment, in preparation for the debate I tried to establish what had actually happened in relation to the expectations of "Plan for Coal" investment up until today. It was a 10–year programme. We are eight years into it.

Mr. Skeet: Will my hon. Friend say when the break—even point is likely to be reached?

Mr. Moore: That is a slightly different point. I hope that there will be an opportunity for me to address myself to it in more detail in Committee. The point that I was making is fundamental to investment in the coal industry. The "Plan for Coal", which the hon. Member for Midlothian had prime responsibility for developing, envisaged capital expenditure of £1.4 billion over the 10–year period to 1985. Any comparison with actual expenditure so far requires certain assumptions to be made about the phasing of projects. However, a broad comparison between actual expenditure and planned expenditure, revalued to take account of inflation, suggests that expenditure of about £2.5 billion at outturn prices was planned by March 1982. So far as these matters can be turned into money of the day, one should have seen about £2.5 billion expended by March 1982. In fact, as hon. Members know from my opening speech, about £3 billion will have been spent to March 1982. It is interesting to see that more money has been committed to the 10-year investment programme.
The House understands the difficulties of structural change in an extractive industry. The reality is that not all the capital investment is necessarily going to the areas that many hon. Members would wish. Very different energy demand assumptions exist in relation to the industry than was the case eight to 10 years ago when "Plan for Coal" was in creation.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Does the Minister agree that a National Coal Board report should be debated every year?

Mr. Moore: I had intended to deal with that point if sufficient time had been available. I am a newcomer to the House, but I thought the idea attractive when the hon. Member mentioned it. It is not within my ability to say what the Leader of the House may decide in terms of a debate. I shall, however draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the point.
I have tried to show that the massive investment under "Plan for Coal" has gone beyond the plan. A coal industry examination interim report produced by the Labour Government in June 1974 contains definite assumptions relating to the pattern of closures due to excessive capacity during the period when new capacity came on stream. The assumption was that 3 million to 4 million tonnes of capacity a year would disappear during the period. I am not unaware of the difficulties or the social problems. I am merely trying to illustrate the reality of what has occurred in the two sides of "Plan for Coal".
It seems to me that all those with a legitimate interest in trying to argue for the long—term success of the coal industry would understand the two parts of the equation. Although the pace of one side has been slower, the other has produced just as much capital as expected. I shall not belabour the point. I expect that we can return to it in Committee.
The House has shown its concern for the success of the coal industry, not only for the benefit of miners, but as a gain from which the whole country will benefit. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY (MONEY)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to increase the limit on the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board; and to make further provision with respect to grants and payments by the Secretary of State in connection with the coal industry, it is expedient to authorize—

Increase of borrowing limits

1. Any payment out of the National Loans Fund, the Consolidated Fund or money provided by Parliament resulting from increasing to £4,500 million, with power to increase by order to £5,000 million, the limit on borrowing by the Board.

Deficit grants

2. Any increase in payments out of money provided by Parliament resulting from extending the period in respect of which grants may be made under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1980 (grants in respect of group deficits of the Board and their subsidiaries) to cover the financial year of the Board ending in March 1984.

Redundant workers

3. The payment out of money provided by Parliament of the sums required to reimburse the Board the amount of payments made by them in respect of loss of superannuation and


employment prospects of persons becoming eligible on or after 11th March 1981 to receive payments under a scheme under section 7 of the Coal Industry Act 1977 (payments to redundant workers), being payments of an amount determined in such manner as may be agreed between the Board and the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury.

Increase of limits on certain grants and payments

4. Any increase in payments out of money provided by Parliament resulting from—

(a) increasing to £1,000 million, with power to increase by order to £1,750 million, the limit on the aggregate amount of grants under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1980 (deficit grants), sections 2 and 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1977 (grants for promoting the sale of coal to Electricity Boards and in connection with stocks of coal and coke) and section 8 of the Coal Industry Act 1973 (grants in respect of coking coal);

(b) increasing to £200 million the limit on the aggregate amount of grants made under section 6 of the Coal Industry Act 1977 (grants in connection with pit closures);

(c) increasing to £300 million the limit on the aggregate amount of payments by the Secretary of State under section 7 of that Act (payments to or in respect of redundant workers).

Receipts

5. Payments into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the New Towns Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Orders of the Day — New Towns Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. ERNEST ARMSTONG in the Chair]

Clause 1

INCREASE OF LIMIT ON BORROWING

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

10 pm

Mr. Ted Graham: On Second Reading of the Bill last week the House had the opportunity to canter over the course of the wide range of interests of the new towns movement. The Opposition intend to waste no opportunity to reinforce the points that we made then. We understand that tonight Conservative Members also want to set out their interest in the new towns. We look forward to debating for a considerable time, at what might be thought to be a late hour, matters of great interest not only to the Committee and the parties, but to those who live in the new towns.
We are pleased that the Government have decided, albeit 18 months after the last increase, that there is a need to make available to the new towns £1,000 million more than was voted before. The Minister for Housing and Construction said on Second Reading that there were two prime reasons why we were being asked to pass the Bill now, when he had originally thought that the money voted 18 months ago would last for three years. One reason was the Government's inability to secure the money that they had thought they would obtain from the disposal of assets. The second was their inability to forecast or estimate the level of interest rates and the effect of those rates on borrowings.
The Minister said that he believed that the moneys that we were being asked for now would last for about two years. Who knows? Perhaps in a year's time the money now being made available—we shall not oppose that—will be running out.
The Minister also told us that later this year we should be able to examine a changed way of financing the borrowings required by new towns over the years. Those of us who are interested naturally look forward to his announcement.
The Opposition recognises the logic behind the prime need for the money. The Minister mentioned four main areas of interest. Besides the normal needs for roads, housing and development, he spoke of the need to finish off and bring to maturity a new shopping centre at Peterborough, a new railway station at Milton Keynes, a new town centre at Telford and a new industrial area at Corby.
I wonder how long it will be before those development corporations get instructions to sell off some of the assets that we are now funding. I wonder whether the Government will be more forthcoming tonight than they were on a previous occasion, when all they would tell us was—and I quote the Under—Secretary of State for the Environment:
We are committed to the continuing disposal of new town industrial and commercial assets in order to reduce the public

sector borrowing requirement and also to reduce the public sector's role as a large—scale landlord."—[Official Report, 26 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 797.]
There can be a dispute as to duress, there can be a dispute as to urgency, and there may be some disappointment on the part of the Government that the total is less than they would wish, but there is no doubt that assets of the kind for which we are voting money tonight are in the process of being sold off in one new town or another. What is more, there is no guarantee that, if it becomes financially imperative for the Government to do so, particularly in respect of their public sector borrowing requirement, in a very short time suggestions will not be made by the Government to those who need to listen very carefully to the Government that they will need to reorganise the funding and financing, and of course the control and the direction, of the kind of assets I have mentioned-the shopping centre at Peterborough the town centre at Telford and the industrial area at Corby.
Public money has been invested—and tonight we are being asked to agree that it be further invested—and entrepreneurial skills and expertise which have been maximised by the public sector hitherto have been used to get these assets ready for the market.
I believe that it was the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) who last week said that it was in the interests of the new towns to get to a state of normality as quickly as possible, that it was necessary to redress the kind of imbalance which he and his colleagues feel has existed. I wonder whether the Minister is able to tell the Committee how far that imbalance is to be redressed.
We already see their policies in housing, and I shall deal at length with the housing situation. We see that the Government are very interested in fulfilling their electoral commitment to make available to every tenant in the new towns the opportunity and the right, enshrined in law, to purchase his own house.
The Minister was able to tell us when he dealt with housing that there were a number of ways in which the Government had sought to bring that about. He mentioned low—cost home ownership schemes. He drew to our attention the fact that 1,300 acres of land had been sold or leased to private house builders and that 14,000 owner—occupied dwellings were scheduled to be built thereon. In Warrington 2,000 dwellings has been built on 25 sites. At Milton Keynes 3,500 dwellings had been built on 45 sites. He was very interested in and proud of the homesteading scheme.
Where does the Second Reading debate show the interest, care and concern of the Government not only for those who are living in the new towns now and who may have lived there for 10, 15 or 20 years but for the second and third generations of people not in the new towns? Where is the Government's concern to ensure not only that the houses that have been built can be sold, but that the people who are unable to buy, who may be very young and may have lived there, for far longer than others who may come in for a short period and buy their houses, can get homes?
I look across the Chamber and behind me. Behind me I see empty spaces. On the Government Benches I see a number of hon. Members who have a particular interest in the waiting lists of their constituents.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: The empty spaces are on the Opposition Benches. That demonstrates the Labour Party's commitment to new towns. After the results in the last general election, I am not surprised.

Mr. David Lambie: Not in Scotland.

Mr. Graham: Relief is on the way.
I intend, ruefully, to draw attention to the fact that in most of the new towns, particularly in England, the electorate decided to return Conservative Members of Parliament. When I give the Committee the trebled and in some cases quadrupled lists of those now unemployed, most of whom undoubtedly voted Conservative, we shall see that there is a range of statistics about the new towns over the past three years in addition to the figures for the acres of land that have been sold to the private developer or to tenants who have bought their homes.
Hon. Members who represent new towns will tell me if my figures are out of date. They are the latest figures of waiting lists that I have been able to obtain from the Library. The later the period, the longer the waiting lists will have grown. I look forward to being corrected by hon. Members on the Government Benches.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) is always in his place during debates on new towns. The figure that I have for the waiting list in Basildon is 3,440. It is about 12 months old. The hon. Gentleman may be able to give me a later figure.

Mr. Proctor: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might mention waiting lists. As far as I can ascertain, the figure is 3,316. Over the year there has been an edging down, if anything at all.

Mr. Graham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for proving that the figures I have been given for the other new towns are broadly correct. The waiting list should form part of the picture of the new towns. They make depressing reading. For Runcorn the figure is 2,662, for Washington, 4,000, Northampton, 3,700, Peterborough, 2,800, Hemel Hempstead, 3,900. Sedgfield, which is Aycliffe, 3,022, Welwyn and Hatfield, 2,163.
I see that most of the Government hon. Members are in their places. I invite them to explain to their constituents precisely what pressures they are bringing to bear on Ministers not merely to allow houses to be bought, new town land to be sold and the sale of the new town assets to be authorised, but to make more houses available for the second and third generations of citizens.
I come now to the Government's overall strategy for new towns. Because of information received from my hon. Friends who have new towns in their constituencies and from chief officers in new towns, we believe that the Government intend, if not to abandon the new towns to their fate, to give them a lower priority for public money and less attention than they have had from successive Governments over the past 35 years. Until the Government came to office in 1979 the approach to the development, encouragement, stimulation and sustenance of new town movements was bipartisan. At times cash may have been short, but the movement was always forwards. There is now the forced sale of assets. We also criticise the Government's lack of support in the rate support grant.
10.15 pm
New towns have special problems. There are extraordinary costs for planning the towns and their

communal assets. The higher proportion of younger people in the new towns also necessitates different provision. The Government persistently fail to respond to pressure from both sides of the House to recognise that new towns are different. The Under-Secretary of State properly said that every area believes that it is entitled to special pleading. However, even with the mix of political control and the changes in the past two or three years in the new towns, there is unanimity on the need for a special input for new towns in the GREAs.
The Government have also failed to respond to the needs of new towns in the HIP allocations. They have a responsibility to help to sustain and expand the new towns. I shall again quote some statistics that are relevant to the constituencies of hon. Members who are present. Welwyn and Hatfield put in a bid for its HIP allocation for 1981–82 of £8,922,000, but it received only £2,000,525. That figure was a lot lower than the figure for the previous year; this year it has been marginally improved.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: If the sale of new town assets moves at tremendous speed, as we hope it will, the money can be ploughed back into the new towns and help to provide more finance. Perhaps even more significant in the case of Welwyn and Hatfield is that the receipts from the sale of council houses can be used to provide more housing accommodation for the second and third generation families living there. In addition, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pay tribute to my efforts to ensure that the redevelopment of the concrete houses in Welwyn Garden City can now go ahead.

Mr. Graham: We have repeatedly asked the Minister for an idea of the sums raised. A statistic was produced last week. We also asked what proportion would be ploughed back into the new towns or, alternatively, what proportion finds it way back into the Treasury coffers. Surely it is not impossible for the Minister and his civil servants to be able to give us some idea of that.
We have been told that it is the Government's intention to plough the money back into the new towns. When the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill was considered in Committee, we sought to move amendments to that effect, but they were rejected by Ministers on the ground that they wanted more flexibility.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is more satisfied than I am that the money raised from the sale of assets will be used for new town purposes. Up to now, we have been unable to get any figures.
The hon. Gentleman also argues that the capital receipts that go to a local authority should be ploughed back. That is the doctrine of the Conservative Party. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in housing. He will no doubt be aware that in July, when giving evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment, the Secretary of State acknowledged that the amount of money finally left to a local authority to invest in new buildings meant that 12 dwellings had to be sold to realise the capital necessary to build a new house.
When I mentioned that last week, the Minister replied "Yes, but in addition to the new house that is built, there are also the two that have been sold". The Conservative Party's imperative need is to sell the houses. Ours is to continue to retain as many as possible for rent. That is the difference between the two parties.
The Conservative Party wishes to pursue its imperative need to sell assets. Labour Members have no objection to


the sale of council houses or to owner-occupation in certain circumstances. One such circumstance is that no people should be desperately in need of housing for rent. Therefore, if the Government intend to continue the sale of new town assets and refuse to tell us how far down the list they will go, we are entitled to alert people in the new towns and others to the situation that will emerge.
Perhaps Conservative Members will also tell me whether my figures for housing starts are correct.
Conservative Members have told us the number of tenants who have bought their houses, and the number of acres that have been sold. I have tried to redress the balance by highlighting the poor allocation of money for housing and the waiting lists. I am told that in Basildon the number of housing starts made between the districts and the corporation in 1979 was 1,099 and that in 1980 the number fell to 350. However, perhaps the hon. Member for Basildon has the figures and can persuade hon. Members and the people of Basildon that to start building 750 fewer houses in the first full year of the Conservative Government's term of office is good for the people of Basildon.

Mr. Proctor: I represent the people of Basildon and I Know that they do not want the new town's designated area to be built on all over, like a gigantic concrete building estate. I must weigh that factor against the waiting list that the hon. Gentleman rightly said numbered 3,316. I had not intended to pursue my earlier intervention, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken up the point, because Basildon is a shining example of a successful new town.
To help him with his speech, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the breakdown of that 3,316. For example, there are 1,487 applications on the single persons' list. Everyone knows that there is a high wastage rate among single persons on the waiting list. I am concerned about the provision of housing for single people, but that figure is slightly phoney. In addition, there are about 102 families in Basildon waiting to be rehoused. That puts the 3,316 in perspective. The remainder—the 1,727—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Proctor: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) was interested in the figures and I am trying to help him—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will try to catch my eye later, but he has made a long intervention.

Mr. Proctor: We are in Committee, Mr. Armstrong.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The rules relating to interventions are the same.

Mr. Graham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Basildon, because in a perhaps lengthy intervention he has demonstrated his detailed knowledge of his constituency and of the waiting lists. In addition, he made the interesting point that, in his view, the people of Basildon do not want the whole of the designated area to be built on. I assume that he is saying that he will oppose not only the building of corporation or council houses, but the sale of land and the building of private houses. Rightly, he did

not distinguish between council and private houses but said that he was opposed to further building in the designated area.
I turn to the atmosphere in which new towns find themselves under a Tory Government. I have acknowledgged that in 1979 many people voted Conservative because they believed in the offers contained in the manifesto. They were interested in the opportunity to buy their houses and they thought that the disgraceful unemployment figures of 1.25 million under a Labour Government was a scandal and could be arrested by a Conservative Government. They thought that they would be allowed to retain more of their earnings in their pockets and that inflation—already at the scandalous level of 9.6 per cent.—would quickly fall. Many people in the new towns felt that they should buy that prospectus and did so.
What has happened? I can just about manage to leave out Basildon, but I have evidence about unemployment in Harlow. In December 1979, unemployment in Harlow was 3.1 per cent. —2,291 people. A year later, it had increased to 6.9 per cent. —5,076. In December 1981, it had rocketed to 9.1 per cent. —6,714 people—a modest figure compared with the national figure. There had been a threefold increase in the number of unemployed people. I wonder when Conservative Members who represent new towns will be as loquacious about the effects of unemployment on their constituents as they are in boasting about the sale of council houses and new town assets.
10.30 pm
Then there is the situation at Stevenage. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) normally shows an interest in these matters. In 1979, 1,379 people were registered unemployed—3.6 per cent. In 1980, the figure had increased to 2,681–6.8 per cent. Now it is 4,346–11 per cent.
Let us look at another part of the country, Peterlee. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) is present. He knows the figures better than I do. In 1979, just after the Government came to office, the total was already a scandalous 9.8 per cent.—I say "scandalous" regardless of which Government were in power. By 1980, the figure had increased to 13.3 per cent. Now it is 16.4 per cent. Let us take Warrington. In 1979 it was 5.7 per cent., in 1980 it was 10 per cent., and in 1981 it was 14.1 per cent. There has been almost a tripling of the unemployment totals, and it is marginally above the average for the country.
We accept that further money will be available to complete the maturity of certain new towns, but it must be said that the Government have a nerve to boast, as the Minister did on Second Reading, that they are satisfied with the progress with the new towns.
Although we shall not oppose the clause, we are far from satisfied that the Under-Secretary or the Minister of State have answered the many detailed problems that were raised. The Under-Secretary was well received when he visited Peterlee last week. While he was there, there was a programme on BBC television which dealt with the section 10 issue. We were told that the amount that would need to be spent to put corporation houses in a reasonable state was £47 million. I do not accept that as the correct figure, and I am sure that the National Building Agency could produce a different figure, particularly as the


Government have already ruled out some of the costs which it had been anticipated would be included, for instance drains.
Can the Under-Secretary say anything hopeful about the problem that will land on the doorstep of the Easington district council a few months after the report from the NBA is received? Last week he told us that before the Government decided how much they would offer, or the formula for the offer, they would allow Easington district council and others to look at the report and put questions directly to the NBA successor and also to Ministers. When one considers that a district council is faced with a bill that could be £47 million, although grant-aided in part—which may be as little as £15 million to £20 million—and saddled with a housing stock upon which must be spent £20 million or £25 million, it is a horrendous prospect.

Mr. Jack Dormand: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making my speech for me. It is much more important coming from him, because he has made many statements about Peterlee. I was one of those who invited the Under-Secretary of State to Peterlee last week. His visit received tremendous publicity and he may also be aware that there was a national television programme about it. I mention that only because of the severity of the problem. My hon. Friend mentions a figure of about £40 million. I hope that he will concur with the view that the position in Peterlee is the worst in the country for new towns.

Mr. Donald Dewar(Glasow, Garscadden): Not compared with Scotland.

Mr. Dormand: When I say "the country", I mean England. When I raised the matter with the Minister for Housing and Construction, who is present this evening, he said that when the HIP allocation was made to Easington an allowance was included for Peterlee. I have taken that up with Easington district council—I hope that I do not put the point too strongly—which is at a loss—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman may be putting his point strongly, but he is doing so at considerable length. Will he kindly bring his intervention to a conclusion?

Mr. Dormand: It is fundamentally important to Easington district council that there is an allocation of money for Peterlee. I hope that before the debate ends we can have clarification of this most important aspect of financial assistance to Easington district council.

Mr. Graham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping to make my speech. He raises a point upon which I touched. Although we are satisfied with the purpose of the Bill, the clause and the figure of £1 billion, we are far from satisfied with the Minister's response to what we consider to be reasonable questions. For instance, we have been told by the Minister that when the allocation is made there is within it an element which the Ministry has said should help to keep the section 10 claim properties out of trouble. Last week I mentioned Stevenage, which asked for £5.8 million and catalogued the things upon which it wished to spend the money. It was given an allocation of £2.8 million and was told that, within the £2.8 million, there was an element for the section 10 properties. No reference was made to whether that element was £200,000

or £500,000. The more money that was intended for that element, the less was left for other purposes. It was already half-cut.
The Under-Secretary of State will do the new towns movement a service by ensuring that his civil servants give him a list of new towns, with against each name the figure in tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds which the people in the new towns will be interested to know is the allocation to be spent on keeping section 10 properties out of trouble.
This is a Government who apparently believe in efficiency, speed, openness and honesty, and I am merely asking them to deliver the goods. They have said that the figures are available and they have been given notice that we want them. We have said that we do not want to argue about them. If the Government do not respond, they may be accused of using generalisations and of fobbing off those who are in a desperate state.
As I have said, Easington may eventually get less than half of the money that it says it needs from the NBA. If that happens, those who are responsible for these matters in Easington will be extremely worried. The former Under-Secretary of State said in Committee and on the Floor of the House that there should be no worry about the section 10 provisions because until the formula is evolved moneys will be made available. I have letters from the chief officers of two authorities who say that they have been told that but that they cannot get the moneys that they require.
The moneys that we shall be voting are welcomed and needed. However, before we allow the clause to stand part of the Bill we require some answers from the Minister.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The Bill increases the statutory borrowing limit for new towns from its present level of £4,000 million to £4,500 million. with a further provision to increase it to £5,000 million. Scotland's borrowing from previous provisions was 16 per cent. in 1980–81, and the 1981–82 figure was 18 per cent. Those percentages were provided by the Under-Secretary of State when he replied at the end of the debate on Second Reading on 26 January.
We are dealing with considerable figures and we do not regretful that the borrowing capacity of the new towns is being increased. My right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the fact that more money is being spent on new towns. There are interesting questions to raise on the accountability of new towns and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has responsibility for industry and the Scottish economic planning department, and with that responsibility for the new towns, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), will know that that is an aspect of new town life in which I am interested.
The Bill is an important financial measure, because the sums involved are not inconsiderable. When we are spending money on new towns it is wise to consider accountability. The new towns have a good record on housing, jobs and the environment, but the accounting for the cash that is borrowed leaves something to be desired, as does the accounting for the decisions taken on how the money will be spent.
10.45 pm
I decided to break out from Scotland, and I have written to every new town in the United Kingdom. I hope that Conservative Members who represent new towns will forgive me for doing that. I wanted to ascertain the practice


in new towns on admitting the press and public to meetings of the development corporation boards. I regret that every new town replied that it did not admit the press and public to meetings of the development corporation board. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) reminded Conservative Members that at the last general election the theme to which the Conservative Party returned again and again—the Prime Minister was often heard to stress the point—was that there would be open Government, that there would be accountability and that people would know about decisions concerning their lives.
That being so, I thought it reasonable to write to every new town and find out what the practice was about admitting the press and public to meetings. I discovered that not one did that. Some, like hon. Members who represent new towns, replied at great length, but it added up to saying that they did not admit the press. Some simply wrote back and said that they had never done that and were not going to do it. Of course, they all said that they produced an annual report which had to be laid before the House. That is a statutory requirement. They all laid claim to keeping the public informed.
My point is that the vast sum of money that we are talking about—the Bill will make more money available to the new towns—will be spent by the development corporations and we will not discover what they have done with it until they produce an annual report a year later and place it before the House. I contend that that is not the open government that Her Majesty's Government promised when they were Her Majesty's Opposition. I wonder when they will finally get back to that, because they are kidding us on when they say they are a party of open government. The whole record is to the contrary.
I am sure that the Committee is aware that not only do new towns spend money but they collect it in the shape of rent and from the sale of assets. They make decisions appertaining to planning and environmental matters. They do all that behind closed doors. my constituents are fed up to the back teeth with that policy. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), who represents Irvine, can tell the House that he, too, has endeavoured to pursue a policy of open government for the new towns, but has got nowhere.
The truth is that the Government determine rents policy and the new towns must carry it out. I shall say something about that, because the new town that I represent recently decided to increase its collection of moneys from the citizens, which will add to the borrowing requirement about which we are talking. On the Government's instructions it decided that the rents would be increased by between 19.8 and 22.2 per cent., against the background of a 12 per cent. rate of inflation last year and an increase in earnings of below 12 per cent. for those fortunate enough to be in work. It does not take account of the fact that thousands of people have been displaced in the Scottish new towns as a consequence of the crazy economic policies pursued by a crazy Government. As a result of that, money coming out of the economy in Cumbernauld will be fairly considerable and that will be true of other Scottish new towns.
That was all decided in an atmosphere of complete secrecy, because the corporations do not conduct their affairs out in the open although, of course, they produce broadsheets and hold press conferences after their

meetings. What is said then is, of course arranged and people do not know the arguements that were offered for one decision or another. It is important to know the arguments. We have the right to know.
If we approve the measure, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that because we have approved the clause he will instruct the new town boards to pursue a policy of open government. It is good to see a Minister from the Scottish Office here. I hope that he will say that he will ask the Government to table an amendment to the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill or a new clause. If we had a new clause that said that the Government would pursue an open door policy, that would be extremely welcome in Scotland.
I shall be mildly complimentary about the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, as it is late at night. I welcome the fact that the Scottish economic planning department has published a useful paper on the future on the new towns in Scotland. It is useful in the sense that we were able to have a debate publicly in Scotland among those of us who live in new towns. We considered how we saw the future of the development corporations and the development of the new towns as we move towards the end of the century.
Some hon. Members have submitted their views. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is actively considering the Government's paper in consultation with development corporation members with whom the Opposition are friendly. It would be desirable if in the Scottish Grand Committee we could discuss the future of the new towns. Some of us have submitted papers to the Minister setting out our views and saying how we see the future.
When we are discussing a measure that substantially increases the borrowing capacity of new towns, it is right that at the same time we should mention some other sources of income and the Government's mistaken view about them. One such source of income to which they are currently directing their attention is the sale of assets. In the paper that I submitted to the Under-Secretary. I made it clear that I did not know of any of my constituents who supported the sale of assets. They write and tell me that that is a mistaken policy. They even stop me on a Saturday morning when I am shopping with my wife in the town centre to tell me that they think that some of the asset selling ideas that the Government are currently pedlling in the new towns are mistaken.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will take account of what the citizens of new towns feel about the sale of assets. It is a mistake to believe that that can fund future development, as has been suggested time and again. It is nonsense to think so. It must be a bad time to sell land. I do not know of any time since the Government came to office when the property market has been at a lower ebb.
Others may know more about these matters than I do. I read only the Financial Times,and I do not know how reliable a document it is. I am not in business. My understanding of the current state of the property market is that we are living in very depressed times. Yet the Government choose precisely such a time to sell their assets. What sensible business man would sell his assets on a depressed market? Only a Tory would be so foolish. That is why we are left with estate agents on the Conservative Benches. I remember when those benches


were occupied by people of worth and substance in the business world, when there were sweet shop owners as well as estate agents and the whole grotty crew. However, I shall move on from that before I get into difficulty.
One asset of the new towns which cannot be sold and which I do not think that even the Government are trying to sell is manpower. I suspect that there are people who think that slavery was a good idea and should be brought back, but I would not attribute that view to Conservative Members. Nevertheless, in this rundown period there is a danger that people with particular expertise, especially in planning, will be lost to new town development. I am worried that, faced with the rundown of the development corporations, the teams of experts who were brought in to plan the new towns, to attract industry to them or to ensure that the environment was such that people would wish to live there may be quickly broken up and the expertise lost. We know that in Scotland some of the staff will have to go to work for the district councils, because they are the major housing authorities, some will find their way into the regional authorities and others may go to the Scottish Development Agency, the Scottish Economic Planning Department or some other central organisation administered by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
In those circumstances, in which there may be a conflict of interests between the merging authorities or a possible loss of expertise, the Minister should be prepared to set up a staff commission, like that which existed at the time of local government reorganisation, to consider the interests of the towns against the background of the talent available to them. I hope that very careful consideration will be given to that.
I return to the question of assets, as it is what is happening to the financing of the new towns that worries us most today, and the important role played by housing in that respect.
Public sector housing in Scotland forms a large part of the total housing stock. I cannot remember the exact percentage, but the number of houses held privately is considerably lower in Scotland than in England and Wales.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): It is the lowest in Western Europe.

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that that is correct. It emphasises the point that I make.
The public sector housing stock is immensely important to the standard of living in Scotland and it is essential that everything possible should be done to ensure that the housing is of the highest standard. In the move towards running down new towns in Scotland, I do not want to see too rapid progress towards fixing a vesting date for placing the houses in the hands of the district council so that all the problems associated with loan charges, interest charges and related matters arise on one day.

11 pm

Mr. Graham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest concern of second generation new towns is a dragging of feet following dissatisfaction over section 10 claims in relation to the first generation new towns? No agreement is likely to be reached with any new town until the Government settle the question of responsibility on the best terms. A whole range of matters apart from rents and the cost of assets needs to be resolved.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's intervention makes the point that I am trying to impress upon the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman insisted on the transfer overnight of development corporation houses to the district authorities, the problems, financial and otherwise, would be considerable. The transfer would have a major impact on rate levels in the new towns. There would be no benefit to the communities either socially or industrially. The Government themselves have plenty to say about the impact of rates on industry.
If an increase in the amount of money made available to new towns will improve their capacity to provide employment—there has been mention of Peterlee—and the attraction of industry, it will be a worthwhile exercise. Although new towns still provide an attractive base for new industry and represent an important feature of our endeavours to achieve inward investment, it is nevertheless a fact that jobs have been disappearing from the new towns at frightening speed. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) will, I am sure, describe the appalling situation that has developed at Irvine.
The same problem exists at Cumbernauld which last year suffered a net loss of 723 jobs. Our second largest manufacturing industry, the clothing industry, in which, I believe, you, Mr. Weatherill, take an interest, could lose several hundred more jobs. I refer, of course, to the Lovable company of Cumbernauld.
I have met the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State. I am grateful for the attention that they gave to what I wished to say about the factory.. I grow more worried about the situation. Later this week, I believe, the receiver will finally accept an offer. I fear that that offer will be conditional upon farther redundancies. If that is so, there will be total resistance by the work force, and they will have my full support.
Those situations exist against the background of the clause. If the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment can say that some of the money will be spent on attracting jobs, that will be good news. I hope that he will listen attentively to those of my hon. Friends who will. draw attention to the serious situations in their constituencies.
I was interested in the letter that the Minister with responsibility for industry and education at the Scottish Office sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden. I was particularly interested that he said:
I think that Norman Hogg and David Lambie were perhaps unduly influenced by the immediate situations in Cumbernauld and Irvine in what they said in the debate.
I do not think that we were unduly influenced. I have repeated some of the things that I said on Second Reading, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire will do the same. It is imperative that we impress upon the Government that, although it is true that new towns have been a success, and that they are to some degree a continuing success, the position in Scotland is dangerous.
I fear that the new towns on the periphery of the city of Glasgow will cease to be industrial bases—perhaps with the exception of East Kilbride—and will become simply places where people live and from which they commute to Glasgow for employment, if we are to have any employment there either. What we say is said not because


we are unduly influenced by but rather because we are immensely concerned about what is to happen in the new towns.
I shall support the Bill, but I hope that we shall receive assurances that some of the money will be converted to the important role of attracting new industry and employment to the new towns in Scotland.

Mr. Dormand: My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) used a telling phrase on Second Reading. He said:
New towns are successful, but, alas, according to the Government they are fatally flawed because they are successful public enterprises."—[Official Report, 26 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 766.]
That was a wise statement. It indicates the whole tenor of this debate and other debates on the new towns. The Government, perhaps more than any other Conservative Government, hate to see public enterprise succeed. Since they came to power they have disbanded public enterprises and put them in a disadvantageous position. We can certainly say that about the new towns, whose residents have been caused immense difficulties.
I want to concentrate on my constituency and Peterlee new town. I referred earlier to the Under-Secretary of State's visit to Peterlee last week. I thank him very much for that visit, which he made as soon as he could. I have asked many questions about Peterlee; I have made speeches about it here; I have sent the hon. Gentleman many letters; and we have had informal chats. I hope that he will agree that going to Peterlee and seeing the terrible state of some of the property there was the only way in which he could understand the problems that some of my constituents are suffering. My complaint is that the Under-Secretary of State managed to spend only three-quarters of an hour with representatives of the Easington district council. It was an additional part of his tour, but it was in some ways one of the most important parts of the visit. He was getting first-hand accounts from councillors who are conscious of the problems facing Peterlee. I hope that he felt that it was worthwhile and that he will take an early opportunity to continue the discussion. I understand that there has been a request for a meeting in London for further discussions. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will confirm what I have said on a number of occasions—that he feels that the conditions in Peterlee are the worst of all the English new towns.
A figure of £47 million was mentioned. I concede that a number of sums have been mentioned for necessary repairs. If we settle for £40 million, I hope that that will demonstrate the problems facing the council, the tenants and the Member of Parliament. Hundreds of constituents are affected. Local newspapers are full of the problem, and television and radio continually carry programmes about it.
I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State would make a statement on the interest which would still be payable on non-existent houses. Twenty-nine houses in Peterlee have been built for only a short time, but their condition is so bad that they are already being demolished. The council will have to pay interest on houses which will not be there. If the Government have any concern for the people of Peterlee, they could do something which would cost little but which would be a gesture to those people and which would show that they are prepared to help the new

town. The cost of repairs in such a serious situation should not be a matter for local people. It is essentially a national issue upon which the Government should take action.
The Under-Secretary will know that his predecessor told the Easington district council that the Government knew that conditions were bad, that it should remedy the worst part of it and that the Government would make sure that the money was available. Not a penny has yet been paid to the council. That is a serious statement and an even more serious situation for the council.
In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) who asked
How much cash flowing from the sale of the assets has been paid back to the Treasury?
the Minister for Housing and Construction stated:
The receipts from the sale of assets have been used in part within the new towns; in part there has been some cash repayment to the Treasury. Any cash repayment to the Treasury has merely enabled the levels of borrowing and public expenditure for the new towns to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise have been possible."—[Official Report, 26 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 759.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton referred to the HIP allocation to new towns. How much money from the sale of assets has gone to meet the needs of towns such as Peterlee? Several needy cases have been quoted. None is worse than that in my constituency.
11.15 pm
The Under-Secretary of State will know what I am about to say. I have raised the matter many times. Easington has had to jump through a number of hoops set by the Government. I repeat with all the force that I can that the Government are still stalling. The most recent Government hurdle has been to refer the matter to the National Building Agency. They know full well that the inquiry will take months. They are now even privatising the agency, which will mean further delay. The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head. We shall watch developments. The Government have brought the problems of housing on themselves. I hope that they will give priority to this important matter.
I indicated an Adjournment debate on the subject recently, so I shall be brief, but I wish to deal with the winding-up of Peterlee development corporation. The development corporations not only in Peterlee but in Aycliffe and Washington—the three new towns in the North-East—make a valuable and important contribution to employment in the region hardest hit by unemployment, the North. I shudder to think what the position would have been without them. They have an excellent record of job finding.
The Peterlee and Aycliffe development corporations are to be wound up on 31 December 1985. The need for jobs in the area will continue long after that. The Under-Secretary of State says that I suggest an open-ended commitment by the Government to the development corporations. That would be unreasonable, but for at least another five years after 1985—certainly if Government policies do not change—there will be a great need for jobs.
My hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies know that the wind-up of their development corporations is to be in 1990. I do not know why in England the date should be 1985 and in Scotland 1990.

Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend touches on an issue central to the future climate and mood of new towns. If in the desperate recession the Government wish to keep the


expertise, knowledge and wisdom built up in the new towns, instead of buying trouble by sticking rigidly to a date that may have looked attractive two or three years ago, they should negotiate a new date. The uncertainty may affect the morale of development corporation employees or their desire to remain with them.

Mr. Dormand: That was to be the next part of my speech. These people are dedicated, knowledgeable and often quite young. They saw their future with the new towns. From time to time I meet the general manager of Peterlee, who does a first-class job. He said that they were bound to be concerned about their futures. At present there are no fewer than eight vacancies in Peterlee. If that is not a manifestation of the point that we are putting to the Under-Secretary, I do not know what is. The Government are blind if they say "This is a long way off yet and it is not affecting staff morale". The simple fact is that—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot talk about morale. The clause is concerned strictly with money.

Mr. Dormand: I am conscious of that, Mr. Weatherill. This is a question of money, because if the Government cut off the money in 1985 the development corporation and all its expertise will come to an end.
If the Government do not give serious consideration to the problems facing Peterlee and other new towns, the desperate unemployment situation in the North-East and in my constituency in particular will become very much more worse. if so, a heavy responsibility will fall on the Government' s shoulders.

Mr. Warren Hawksley (The Wrekin): I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. I wish to raise a specific and important point. The amount mentioned in the clause is adequate to ensure that the third generation new towns in particular are completed, and that is the Government's commitment.
Telford is located in my constituency. I am not particularly concerned about housing, but rather about how much of the money under discussion will be available for health provision. We have heard of new towns getting something from this lump sum for health provision in their areas. We in Telford have inadequate health provision. Our waiting list is increasing, whereas in most parts of the country the waiting lists are going down. A hospital was closed while the Labour Government were in office. As result, there is no hospital within the area.
The Government have given a commitment to provide a new district general hospital. The regional health authority has asked whether it can provide the money for it—

The Chairman: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but the clause has nothing to do with hospitals. It is concerned only with an increase in the borrowing limit.

Mr. Hawksley: I respect the point that you have made, Mr. Weatherill. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say whether part of this sum will go towards health provision within the new towns. I should like to hear what provision will be available. I believe that some new towns get some provision, whereas others do not. Telford gets none.
The regional health authority is not providing the new district hospital at present, not because of lack of

resources, but because that is not its top priority. Therefore, I should like to know whether part of this money will be made available for that. Can we expect some provision from this total amount to meet the health needs that everyone in the new town, including the new town corporation and the area health authority, regards as essential?
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give assurances to my electorate that he will at least do all that he can to put pressure on the regional health authority to provide the health services to which the Telford area is entitled.

Mr. David Lambie: The clause allows for an increase from £4,000 million to £5,000 million in the borrowing limit. On Second Reading, I was prepared to support the clause, but after my meeting last weekend with representatives of Irvine development corporation I am prepared to vote against it.
Before being prepared to support that increase in the borrowing limit, I want to know how much of the money will be allocated to Irvine new town, in my constituency, and whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will impose any sanctions on local authorities before allocating that money. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg), I welcome to the Chamber the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for Scottish new towns. We do not often see him at debates in which Scottish interests are also being discussed. The last time that I called for his attendance, I was tole that I had upset him and that he had had to leave a dinner to answer my Back-Bench questions. I hope that he has not had to leave somewhere tonight to come to the Chamber. However, it is good to see the Minister in the Chamber, and I hope that he will consider the points raised 5y my hon. Friend, with special reference to Scotland and the Scottish new towns.
I represent Irvine new town, which was the last new town to be designated in Scotland. Contrary to the views of Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends, it is not a success, but a disaster story. It is not a new town but a disaster town. Unemployment stands at 24.7 per cent. and male unemployment stands at 29 per cent. Nearly every third male in Irvine is unemployed. Hon. Members can therefore see why I want to know how much of the extra £1,000 million is to be spent on Irvine. If ever an area needed money, and an inflow of capital and Government money, it is that new town.
How much of the money will be allocated to Irvine? More importantly, will the Secretary of State for Scotland impose any conditions on Irvine before allocating it? On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East said that the Secretary of State had that day issued a press statement implying that the Government recommended that new town boards should increase rents by, on average, 22 per cent. For hon. Members that was the first announcement of the Government's policy to increase new town rents by 22 per cent.
After that press statement, I had an urgent meeting with local councillors for the new town areas. We demanded a meeting with the board members of Irvine development corporation and with the chief officials. That meeting was held on Friday afternoon. I am therefore not prepared to vote in favour of the clause unless we are given certain assurances. We met Eric Dale, one of the senior members


of the board and Tony Rickets, the managing director, as well as officials from the finance and housing departments. We asked them to explain what Irvine development corporation would do about the recommendations to increase rents in Scotland by 22 per cent. He told us that the board on 19 January decided that because of economic conditions it could not impose a 22 per cent. increase in rents. By a majority, the board decided to increase rents by 12 per cent., which represented the average inflation rate. Some members of the board wanted rents to be increased only by the Government norm for wage increases—4 per cent—but the majority agreed that rent increases should be 12 per cent rather than 22 per cent., as suggested by the Secretary of State.
11.30 pm
When that decision was reported to the Secretary of State he called urban development corporation officials to Edinburgh to explain why they had not carried out his policy. Mr. Tony Rickets and other officials said that the corporation could not increase rents above the 12 per cent. inflation rate. They took that decision on the basis of the poverty in Irvine new town, which has an unemployment rate of 24.7 per cent. One cannot expect people there to pay 22 per cent. rent increases.
To give an idea of the poverty in Irvine new town, I have only to explain that 55 per cent. of IDC tenants receive rent rebates or help with rents through social security. About 75 per cent. of tenants are below the poverty line and therefore receive help either through rent rebates or rent allowances.
Hon. Members who represent English constituencies cannot understand the poverty experienced in Scotland, especially in Irvine new town. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) often speaks of the poverty level in Northern Ireland. It is nothing compared with that which is experienced in certain areas of Scotland. That is why the Irvine development corporation appealed to officials of the Scottish economic planning department to increase rents by only 12 per cent. They were told that the Secretary of State had powers to apply his directive under the legislation. They were told that the Secretary of State would invoke sanctions on capital and other expenditure. That is why I am raising the matter tonight.
If the Secretary of State has powers to impose sanctions on capital and other expenditure, why do we need the extra £1,000 million? If the local development corporation is not allowed to spend its money as it wishes and is not allowed to get income from various activities in the way that it wants, there is no need for the extra £1,000 million.
Dire consequences have been threatened if the directive is not adhered to. The Secretary of State for Scotland has taken dictatorial powers. Scottish local authorities have fewer powers than Polish local authorities under a military dictatorship. I wish that President Reagan would organise a television spectacular on Scotland instead of wasting his money on Poland. If ever we needed a television spectacular to point out the Secretary of State's powers, it is now.
Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary of State to assure me that he will intercede and tell the Secretary of State for Scotland that he must meet the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and local councillors of Irvine new town as

quickly as possible so that they may make direct representations to him to change his policy, to rescind the 22 per cent. rent increase which has been imposed on the tenants and to allow the Irvine development corporation to fix rent levels that it feels are suitable for the area.
I ask the Under-Secretary not only to intercede with the Secretary of State for Scotland to arrange a meeting as quickly as possible—because the rent notices are to go out soon—but to explain why the Government need an extra £1,000 million in borrowing limits when they will not allow the local authorities to spend that money, most of which they will get from the tenants.
I have never supported the Government's policy on the sale of council or new town houses, but if these rent increases are to be imposed on public sector housing in Scotland I shall change my view. I suggest that, instead of selling council and new town corporation houses in Scotland, the Government should give them to the tenants. People cannot afford to pay rent increases year in, year out. The Government should give the houses to the tenants for nothing. The Government will not then need the extra £1,000 million for which they are asking tonight.
I hope that Conservative Members—especially the diehard Tories, some of whom are present—will support me on this matter. Instead of selling the assets, we should give them to the tenants. We should not go on imposing ever-increasing rent burdens on tenants.
I want an assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland will meet me and local councillors from Irvine new town as a matter of urgency to discuss the 22 per cent. rent increase.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), because he said what I would have said on Second Reading if I had been able to take part. Unfortunately, I was ill and could not be here. My hon. Friend did not join the mutual admiration society which apparently was in operation during the Second Reading debate. Almost all who took part in the debate paid tribute to the wisdom of setting up the new towns. Hon. Members almost vied with each other to eulogise the idea of the Labour Government.
I represent Skelmersdale new town. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire said that Irvine new town was a disaster. I do not suggest that Skelmersdale is a disaster, but it has suffered many serious body blows. For statistical reasons, male unemployment figures for Skelmersdale are amalgamated with those for the much older and more stable town of Ormskirk. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) often asks questions about unemployment in his constituency. Because Ormskirk is merged with Skelmersdale, the figure is diluted. That helps my hon. Friend, because in Ormskirk it is inflated, whereas in Skelmersdale it is diluted. The best estimate that we have for male unemployment is broadly similar to the 29 per cent. that my hon. Friend mentioned for Irvine, so I should not have joined that mutual admiration society.
In this debate, which is essentially about money, I do not want to give too many hostages to fortune and say that the money resource that was used to develop Skelmersdale new town might have been better used if Skelmersdale had not been developed as a new town. One of the prime intentions was to resuscitate Liverpool. Liverpool has


suffered because four new towns have sucked the lifeblood out of it, and we are now paying the price for that. Money and the resources could have been used to help St. Helens, my home town, which could have absorbed 10,000 or 15.000 people from the Liverpool area. Those people could have moved to a settled community. There would have been no need to spend money on developing shopping centres, and the like.
The same is true of Wigan, which I do not have the honour to represent, although much of my constituency surrounds it. Wigan, like St. Helens, could have been asked to absorb 10,000 or 15,000 people from the Liverpool area. Again, those people would have moved to a settled community, and again money need not have been spent on what I call new town shopping facilities, and so on. Those old towns, which had problems of social and industrial dereliction, could have been helped to overcome those problems. That would have been a wiser proposition—albeit with the benefit of hindsight.
However, we have Skelmersdale. The grand design of any new town means—and should mean—that certain facilities are built in. Education springs naturally to mind. I join the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr Hawksley), who asked the Minister how much of the money allocated in the Bill would provide better hospital facilities in his new town of Telford. I ask the same question about Skelmersdale. The grand design cannot be completed if there is no provision for a hospital, albeit one that is scaled down from the hospital that was originally planned. That would assuage the feelings of the people there that the Government have abandoned them to their fate.
Expectations are raised when a new town is created. We tell the people there that everything will be brand new—roads, shops, schools, and so on. I do not blame this Government or the Labour Government. We are too fond of saying that everything is the Government's fault. The two massive closures at Courtaulds and the Thorn colour tube plant took place during the period of the Labour Government. We debated those closures in the House, and I had sympathy from all sides. About 3,500 jobs were lost.
One cannot easily say that that was the Government's fault. It happened. I wanted the Government to take some action, but they could not take it. The jobs went and the people felt that they are abandoned. We raise expectations when we build new towns, and people who go there think that they are gong to new industries that will last for ever.

Order. We are now getting on to the merits of new towns. This clause is concerned only with money. The hon. Gentleman is correct to argue about whether that money should go to his new town, but he must not dwell on the merits of new towns.

Mr. McGuire: I apologise for straining your good temper, Mr. Weatherill.
We lack jobs in Skelmersdale. It is not easy for any Government to provide jobs. However, it is easy for the Government to take the initiative to provide us with a hospital. I wish to know how much of the money allocated will go towards that purpose. The hon. Member for The Wrekin also wished to know that. It will help not only by providing jobs, but by providing a better medical service, which the very name of a new town implies.
The grand design remains unfulfilled in many respects. It would at least assuage the feeling of the residents that

they have been abandoned by an uncaring Government. I wish the Government to say that they will provide the hospital facility, although it may be scaled down from the plan of a few years ago. The latest date given for construction of a hospital was 1981–82, but we are a long way from that.
The Under-Secretary of State is reported in the Official Report as saying that in Skelmersdale a remarkable 25 per cent. of people own their houses or are buying them. It stands out as the high point of any of the established new towns. It must certainly be the highest of the third generation towns.
There is a lesson to be learnt from the use of the money that we are discussing tonight, which I hope will go a little way towards remedying the defects of Skelmersdale. Those houses that have been bought—the high proportion to which the Minister referred—were abandoned and derelict because people did not find them desirable. The cancer was spreading. The population of Skelmersdale should be about 85,000, but we have been stuck around the 40,000 mark for some years because jobs have disappeared and people are not coming to live in the town. The houses became empty and we could not get tenants for them.
What happened there has happened in other areas. If one does not board the windows up after a tenant leaves, they are smashed, or people break into the houses and vandalise them. The houses became an eyesore. When decent people who lived nearby saw that the houses were being left empty they also wished to move, because they saw the cancer spreading. That is when the policy of selling the houses cheaply started. I welcomed the initiative, because I believed that nothing else could be done.

Mr. Lambie: They should have been given away.

Mr. McGuire: They were nearly given away, because they were sold at such low prices. However, they were sold because they were not a commercial proposition. The people who bought the houses needed much do-it-yourself ability and initiative to restore them. They have made most of them into grand houses. However, because of the Government's change of policy since the scheme to sell houses in new towns was started, many people have bought at very inflated prices. A larger subsidy has been given and the new town corporation has been told, on the Minister's directive, to relax the conditions governing sale.
I have written to the development corporation and I have been told that it is trying to persuade the Government to help the new town by releasing people from commitments that they entered into that have led them to feel gravely disadvantaged. They know that some of their neighbours who bought a few months later have received much greater subsidies because of a change in Government policy. I do not think that any of us would like to have that done to us. The Minister could say to the corporation "The change in policy has had a bad effect on some. We did not want that to happen. We did not think things through. We shall try to put those who have been disadvantaged on a par with the others."
I hope that the Minister will help the corporation to implement a change in policy. In doing so he will give succour to those who feel that they have been badly done by. If the money that we allocate tonight will be used for


that purpose among others, I shall welcome the Bill. I hope that I shall get a favourable response from the Minister. In my bones I can almost feel him preparing to give me the answer that I want to hear.

Mr. Dewar: This is a narrow debate and I do not intend to stray any further than any other hon. Member during my brief remarks. It has been a useful debate. We have even had one contribution from the Conservative Back Benches, which showed a degree of courage at this time of night. We shall conclude our discussion fairly shortly. There is no intention on the Opposition Benches of unnaturally or unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings. I shall comment briefly on Scottish aspects of the debate.
We have heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) and Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg). There are five new towns in Scotland and they are a significant percentage of the new towns in Britain. The Scottish new towns have a considerably longer life expectancy than many of those in England. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) said that in the consultative document the Government stated that they did not anticipate that any Scottish new town would be wound up before the end of the 1980s. They will be with us for considerably longer than the Government, but they will be influenced in their development and in the pace of development by the money that is available, especially the substantial sums that are mentioned in the clause.
On Second Reading we did not have the benefit of the presence of a Scottish Office Minister, but tonight we have with us the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who sits mute on the Government Front Bench, to remind us that we have Scottish Ministers. I have received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment which deals with a number of the financial issues that were raised on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman promptly honoured the promise that he made at that stage. I am glad that the Under-Secretary for Scotland is present because there has been some criticism recently of the absence of Scottish Ministers, especially on Monday night when we had an important debate on nuclear power.
Money is fundamental, and we must know exactly what is meant by the increase in the borrowing limit and the extent to which that will influence the five Scottish new towns. There is a great deal of anxiety about the situation in the new towns. I have some sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire)—that, on occasions, there is an atmosphere of complacency as we address ourselves to this problem. The Minister wrote to me on 2 February 1982 about the success of the new towns and said:
I think that Norman Hogg and David Lambie were perhaps unduly influenced by the immediate situations in Cumbemauld and Irvine in what they said in that debate.
They probably were greatly influenced by the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayshire is right in saying that the extra money that the clause represents could be of vital importance in combating an unemployment rate of 24.7 per cent. which is appalling in a new town which the Minister referred to as a success and complains that the unfortunate hon. Members have been
perhaps unduly influenced by the immediate situations".

How I wish that "immediate" meant short term. With the Government's economic policies, we fear that that will not be so. What we want to know from the UnderSecretary—who once again has the unfortunate task of acting as the mouthpiece of the Scottish Office—is exactly how much extras finance will be made available to Irvine new town to counteract the appallingly serious situation that has developed in its employment prospects.
In the same letter, the Minister hopefully said:
in the last 14 months over 3,650 new jobs, mainly from overseas companies, have been announced by firms setting up or expanding in the Scottish new towns.
That may be so, but the deafening lack of information relates to the number of jobs which in the same 14 months have been lost, to offset probably many times over the 3,650 jobs to which the Minister rather superficially referred.
It is important when we consider the money invested in new towns to consider the impact that the additional borrowing requirement will have. Considering a slightly earlier period, in reply to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East—who has displayed a close and continuous interest in these matters for some time—the Under-Secretary stated:
For the year ended 31 March 1981, 12,788 jobs were lost and only 4,933 were created."—[Official Report, 11 November 1981; Vol. 12, c. 97.]
In the nine months since, I suspect that the picture has not greatly changed and, although I would not say it borders on the dishonest—that would be too harsh a charge—the Minister, when referring to the job creation figures, was giving us an incomplete picture in a way that he knows must be misleading.
The Minister was good enough to quote my remark on Second Reading that we could not insulate the new towns from the economic blizzard that is blowing. That may be so, and I accept that there is no magic formula which will make the new towns immune from the economic disease affecting Scotland as a whole.
However, that is not an excuse for complacency or for the Minister to say "Because we cannot insulate, we can do nothing". We ought to be doing a great deal more and I am not satisfied by the tone of the paragraph from the letter I have quoted, nor indeed the general remarks made by the Minister in the past few months. I am certainly less than satisfied by his actions that the Government are doing everything they can to help the new towns and the rest of Scotland, particularly Cumbernauld and Irvine.
When the Under-Secretary replies, I hope that he will give us some indication that he will be prodding the Scottish Office Ministers into renewed activity to deal with these severe and difficult problems.
I turn comparatively briefly to one or two technical points about the allocation of the money. I say unashamedly that I am not an expert in the allocation mechanisms of public expenditure. Therefore, I read with particular interest the remarks of the Under-Secretary, or of the civil servants who composed the letter. In any event, it is signed in the hon. Gentleman's name and raises some aspects that we should ruminate on at this stage.
12 midnight
I accept that in the past Scotland had a fair share of the borrowing of the money available under the borrowing requirement. I am told that Scotland normally receives between 11 per cent. and 14 per cent. of the total new towns' borrowing in any given year. It was £49 million out


of £440 million in 1980–81 and £52 million out of £381 million in 1981–82. I have no great quarrel with that. Scotland has been borrowing money, not receiving it. We all often make the mistake of thinking that the Government are giving the new towns that money, but they are merely giving them permission to go to the money market to raise the cash and pay the interest on it. The Scottish towns have been receiving a fair percentage of the new towns' borrowing.
The Minister is involved in the intricacies of the system and will be able to give a short answer. I should like to know how the Scottish figure is separated from the United Kingdom total. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North goes on to say in his letter:
In any case the proportion"—
that is the Scottish proportion of the money we propose to vote in the clause—
is not determined by a directly related share out of resources among the English, Welsh and Scottish new towns; the Scottish new towns' borrowing requirement is a consequence of the share of resources which the Secretary of State decides should be made available for the new towns from within the Scottish block".
That is a little ambiguous, but I take it to mean that the Scottish Office block is the overall budget that the Secretary of State has under his control in Scotland and within which he can do a good deal of switching. Much flexibility is built in between specific spending programmes.
The picture that emerges for me, of which I should like confirmation, is that the Minister is saying that there is no attempt to take the cumulative figure for a specific year—£4,000 million or whatever it may be—and the tranche that will be borrowed in that year, and divide it in the 85:10:5 ratio, the updated Goshen quotient with which we in Scottish politics are familiar.
The Secretary of State for Scotland looks at his total budget and presumably the area that will be devoted to housing investment and resources and says that out of that he will carve a capital sum which will be allocated to the new towns and which they will be allowed to borrow from the national loans fund or from the market. I understand that; it is clear and comprehensible. However, I should like to know whether there is any control on the discretion of the Secretary of State in deciding what he will allocate to new towns.
The more the Secretary of State allocates in Scotland, and if the discretion is left entirely with him, the greater will be the impact on the total United Kingdom figure that we are told is not allocated in any sense on a Scottish, English, Welsh or any other geographical basis. If there were a Secretary of State for Scotland who gave high priority to housing or who had a special vested interest in new towns—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East, if he became Secretary of State in a future Labour Administration, which is not impossible—and he drastically increased the borrowing requirement available to the Scottish new towns, that would have a great impact, perhaps a distorting impact, on the margin on the borrowing requirement in the Bill.
I should like more information on how the two processes—the decision on the United Kingdom total which we are discussing now, and the impact of the quarrying out of a Scottish sub-total, which is entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of State—are correlated and intermeshed in the mysterious intricacies of the Whitehall machinery. I hope that the Minister will say a word or two about that.
As the Committee will have gathered, there is a good deal of anxiety in Scotland, not just about the total investment in new towns and what the Government allow, but about some of the other ways in which money is raised for new towns, which affects what their borrowing requirement will be and the necessity for the limit.
We are all familar with the considerable anger justifiably generated by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, and I know that it is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East. One way in which we can spare the borrowing requirement and thus take the strain off the total moneys allocated under the clause is to increase revenue from rents. I shall not go into that at length, save to say that I entirely share the concern of hon. Members representing new towns when I discover that the Government are dictating to the new town corporations in this matter. There is no apology about it. There is not the shabby pretence which exists in the wider sphere of local government that an element of discretion is left to local government in these matters. It is pure dictation. The corporations are expected to produce rents between £1.90 and £2.10 per week higher in the current financial year than in the previous year.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland says in his letter that this figure
is slightly below the figure sought from local authorities".
That may be so, but it is cold comfort, especially when it comes on top of the substantial increase forced upon the new towns the previous year. New town rents are considerably higher than local authority rents in Scotland as a whole and this is therefore extremely unfortunate. Even if it is in an effort to cut the public sector borrowing requirement and to ensure that the money or rather the borrowing requirement provided by the clause lasts a little longer, it is getting close to the point at which social justice should call a halt even to the rapacious interests of this collection of Ministers in wringing from the electorate the highest possible rent income.
A final point of some substance relates to the disposal of assets, which again affects the strain that will be put upon the total figure that new towns will be able to borrow under the clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington and others have made clear, there is no doubt that the more money that is raised by the sale of assets, the less presumably will have to be borrowed on the open market and the less the necessity for this increase in borrowing limits.
Until recently, because I had not been deeply involved in new towns, I was under the impression that very little effort had been made to force the disposal of assets in this context. I was aware that there was a major dispute in England, but in Scotland it has been rather more under cover and perhaps less of a public issue. Again, I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for giving me some facts and figures in his extremely useful letter, in which he tells me that
over the three financial years 1979–80, 1980–81, and 1981–82 £21.1 million will have been raised by the sale of industrial and commercial assets".
I should say in defence of the Government, because I want to be fair, that the letter continues by saying that
almost £20 million has been used immediately to finance Further development".
It is, as it were, a recycling process in which money is raised on the finished product and then reinvested in further development. Although I dislike the whole system,


I realise that, if it is to be operated at all, it is useful for reinvestment to be made directly in the new towns so that to that extent we see some benefits.
Perhaps the Minister will briefly answer one or two questions on this. First, will the pace of asset-stripping in Scotland be maintained? [Interruption.] The Minister seems to feel that "asset stripping" is a pejorative term. It is merely a useful shorthand term, although it has the advantage of at least provoking a reaction from the Scottish Office which I believe is sufficient justification for its use.

Mr. Graham: Flogging off.

Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend suggests the term "flogging off' as an alternative. In any event, £21.1 million has been raised in this way over the past three years. Does the Minister expect the alienation of assets in Scottish new towns to continue at that sort of pace and level? Equally as important, I wish to know whether the level of reinvestment will be the same. As the Scottish Office Minister has been able to give precise reinvestment figures in Scotland, I see no reason why figures should not be available south of the border.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman does not know the difference between selling and reinvesting in the institution, in this case the new towns, and selling and hiving off the proceeds of the sale elsewhere, which is asset stripping. As the hon. Gentleman said correctly at the start of his remarks, the funds realised from the sale of assets are reinvested in the new towns. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw the charge of asset stripping: it is wholly inaccurate.

Mr. Dewar: I am not convinced by what the hon. Gentleman says. The Minister protests too much. If he had stated that the principal reason for the sale of the assets was to reinvest, I would disagree with the policy but accord it some sympathy. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is trying to save his face with the Treasury in terms of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and the level of public expenditure. I do not believe, at this time and in present circumstances, that a directive to new towns to sell assets makes economic sense.
In the initial stages, it may be possible to dispose of some items without great loss or public inconvenience. I fear, however, that as the policy is pursued, as the Government, I suspect, will say must happen, we shall find ourselves in a bad market at a bad time selling assets and capital that could be handsomely used by the public and appreciate in value. I dislike the element of expediency that appears to dictate the Government's policy. The Minister, in his letter, says that
there has been no evidence of a kind of disagreement which you attempted to read into the passages from the Annual Reports".
I believe that that was a reference to the East Kilbride report and its references to the selling of assets in that new town.
There has been a great deal of private disquiet. If the Minister insists on expanding the policy, he will encounter much disagreement in the years ahead. My fear is that the extra room provided in the clause for allowing borrowing consent to individual new towns will not be sufficient to have an impact on the problems facing the new towns.
Figures for early 1981—they are older than I would have liked—show that planned provision for gross capital

expenditure on housing by new towns in Scotland amounted to £76 million in 1977–78 and £36 million in 1981–82 at constant prices. Public investment in new towns, especially housing, shows, I believe, an overall pattern of decline, less steep perhaps in some areas than others, during this Government's period in office. It is an extremely serious situation. The Government's slogan formerly was "Invest in success." I recall the days when Conservatives talked about growth points in another context. Some hon. Members may have had grave reservations about the effects of growth point policy in general industrial terms.
The new towns were seen as success centres. However, in the climate created by the Government, they are not self-perpetuating. They cannot maintain momentum. They need help. The financial support likely to be available under clause 1 does not convince me that the impetus, vision and enthusiasm required to support the new towns exists among Scottish Office Ministers. I pass no judgment on their English counterparts. I have heartfelt sympathy for the points made by hon. Members about unemployment levels in Irvine and the difficulties faced in other new towns. There has been a steady loss of confidence, a steady draining of jobs, from the new town concept, which was right and which should and can have a future if Ministers are prepared to put their backs into supporting it.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): In trying to deal with some of the points raised in over two hours of debate I shall start with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), who seemed to get a second wind over the weekend after his 27-minute speech on the subject on 26 January. It would be a discourtesy to last week's speech if I said that there was much in his speech tonight that called for additional comment. However, perhaps I might re-emphasise one or two points. We are investing more in the new towns than we are receiving from the sales. That is why the Bill is needed. We are increasing the resources available.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about our policy to try to redress the imbalance in the new towns. The majority of the town centres and industrial estates were built not with taxpayers' money but with private institutional funds. The new towns are to that extent the exception; they have been built with taxpayers' money. Our policy is to return the new towns to the normality that exists everywhere else. That is what we mean by trying to achieve a proper balance.

Mr. Graham: As town centres in places that are not new towns are perhaps the products of 200 or 300 years, is it not unreasonable to try to achieve a balance, or return to normality, in new towns in such a tight time scale as five or 10 years.?

Sir George Young: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. In my own constituency the Ealing town centre is being rebuilt by private development funds, so I do not accept that new towns are unique in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the fact that some people were unable to buy was a justification for continuing to build for rent. What my hon. Friends have been trying to do is to introduce policies that make it


possible for people who previously could not buy to afford their own homes. That is why we have been concentrating a whole range of initiatives on low-cost home ownership, which we think is a more realistic solution to the housing problems facing the income group to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Housing completions in the new towns in 1978–79 were 9,920. In 1981–82 they will be 13,160—a substantial increase, due mainly to the increase in the number of private housing completions.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) spoke about accountability and his campaign to open up the meetings of the development corporations to the press. The matter has been the subject of considerable discussion in the House. Ministers responsible for the new towns in Scotland as well as in England have made it clear that, largely because of the importance of maintaining commercial confidentiality, we do not think that it would be right for us to direct the corporations to open their meetings to the press and the public. However, because we recognise the importance of keeping people well informed, the development corporations in Scotland have, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, taken measures to develop regular and frequent contacts with the press and to improve the presentation of their activities to the public. The position remains exactly as it was when the Labour Government were in power before the last general election.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the money would be made available for. The answer is that it will be made available, certainly in Scotland, for developing the industrial infrastructure in new towns, with the main objective of attracting new jobs into the areas.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) said, the Government rejoice in the success of the new towns, but we believe that they will be even more successful if the inhabitants can own their own homes, if the resources of private industry are harnessed in the development of new towns, and if the development land which the public sector does not have the resources to build on at present can be developed by the private sector.
I had a friendly reception from the councillors of the Easington district council when I visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I find the councillors in the North-East far easier to deal with than the Labour councillors in London. I spent three-quarters of an hour in formal discussion with them and also had lunch with them. Officials from the district council were available when I visited the properties. I await the National Building Council's report on the properties. I am not a builder. I do not have the slightest idea what is wrong with them, but clearly the condition is serious. I cannot in any way prejudge the outcome of the independent survey.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could say by how much the HIP allocation had been increased to take account of the problems facing the district council. Ministers do not break down HIP allocations in this way. A block sum of money is available to the local authority. It is for the local authority to spend it in the way that it thinks best.
I confirm that interest on debt is payable even if the buildings are demolished. A parallel with the private sector is that one would have to continue paying the hire purchase on one's car even if one had written it off.

Mr. Graham: The Minister tells us that within the HIP allocation there is a portion earmarked for section 10

renewals. His predecessor said more than once that an allowance is made. More than one development corporation and new town have been told that there is an inbuilt figure, so the figure must be somewhere. The hon. Gentleman says that Ministers do not break the figure down, but he asks us to believe that there is a portion contained within it, so why can we not be told what it is? We should then know precisely how much it is reasonable to spend on putting right section 10 properties.

Sir George Young: Our policy on this is exactly the same as that of the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member. In making the HIP allocation to the authority we have borne in mind the problems created by the defects in the Peterlee new town houses which have been transferred to Easington. We have taken a large number of other factors into account. We are not in the business of breaking down component factors and announcing them to Easington council.
The reason why wind-up dates are different in Scotland is that the maturity of the new towns in Scotland is different. They were set up later, and, as a result, they will be wound up later.
I was impressed in Easington by the partnership between the development corporation and the local authority. I was also impressed by the determination of all the bodies to get more jobs into the area.
I tell my hon.Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) that the money for hospitals does not come from the provision in the Bill. As I believe he knows, the health facilities are provided by the DHSS. The allocation of resources within the National Health Service is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the DHSS. I shall take the matter up with the Minister for Health and get an answer for my hon. Friend on the pressing constituency health problems that he raised.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) asked how much money there would be for Irvine. The Bill increases the borrowing limits for all the new town corporations. The actual allocation of money to individual corporations is a separate procedure. In Scotland it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who within his block allocation allocates funds to the separate new town corporations.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether any conditions were attached. In practice the development corporations pass on the rent increases that the Secretary of State announces. The procedure is exactly as it has been under past Administrations.

Mr. Lambie: The Minister should know that on previous occasions the rent increases imposed in Irvine were the lowest in Scotland, because of economic conditions and because Irvine was the newest of the new towns. This time the rent increases were the same as in all the other new towns in Scotland. There is a tremendous difference this time compared with other years.

Sir George Young: From the figures that I have in front of me I see that rents in Cumbernauld are slightly higher than those in Irvine. The best thing that I can do is to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who wrote such an excellent letter after the Scottish interventions last week, to write another excellent letter to Scottish Members who have intervened in this debate.
I am accused of being the mouthpiece of the Secretary of State for Scotland. My name is not dissimilar to his. Owing to a mistake by the telephone exchange at No. 10 shortly after the general election, I nearly was the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) made a thoughtful and balanced contribution to the debate. I welcome his support for what we did in Skelmersdale to bring the properties into sensible use. I see enormous difficulties in trying to tackle the problem of those who bought their properties at a discount which was subsequently increased when we came to power. If we tried retrospectively to apply the more generous discounts introduced in the Housing Act 1980 we should open a can of worms. I do not see where it would stop. I shall raise with the Minister for Health the question of resource allocations for the hospital in the hon. Gentleman's contituency.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked how the Scottish figure was allocated within the Great Britain figure. The Scottish new town resources are allocated from the total Scottish Office block, as he said. The Scottish borrowing is aggregated with the English borrowing only for the purpose of the Bill and for the statutory limit. The Secretary of State for Scotland is accountable for the money spent on the new town programme.
It is our policy to dispose of the assets. We shall pursue that policy for as long as we can. Once the houses, factories and shops have been built, we do not see why the corporations should hang on to them. It makes sense for them to get the cash by selling the assets and to recycle it by further development either within that corporation or another corporation.
The disposal figures for Great Britain were given in column 800 of last week's debate. For England alone, from 1979–80 to 1981–82, total gross investment was £887 million. Of that, £370 million was from capital receipts from the sale of assets. The rest—£517 million—was from borrowing.
I have tried to deal with the main points raised in the debate. I hope that the Committee can now agree that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Sir George Young.]

Mr. Proctor: I supported the Bill on Second Reading last week and I do so again tonight. I am delighted that we debated the Bill in Committee and are now debating it on Third Reading, thanks in large measure to my hon. Friends, who take a substantial interest in new town affairs. It is noticeable that on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading no Liberal or Social Democrat has been present. Our constituents should be aware of this lack of attention to their affairs and to those of new towns.
Perhaps unanimous agreement will now end, because I want to make three brief points about housing, unemployment and borrowing. I shall not weary the House

again with the sucess story of the Government's right-tobuy provisions in Basildon and the large number of my constituents who have taken up that right.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr.Graham)—up-todate as usual—quoted figures for the Basildon housing waiting list that were 12 months out of date. He referred to a figure of more than 3,000. In a brief intervention I tried to set that figure in context, and perhaps I can now do so in more detail.
That figure of 3,316 as at 31 December 1981 is divided between the district council and the development corporation. It is not entirely related to the new town of Basildon, because it includes those waiting in other parts of my constituency in Billericay and Wickford.
If one looks at the global figure of 3,000 and breaks it down, one finds that there are 1,487 applicants in the single person's category, 102 in the family category and 1,727 provisional applications, such as those from engaged couples or people with a common law relationship. The number of provisional applications also includes outstanding inquiries.
It is true that there is a high fall-out of applicants from the single persons' waiting list. The take-up rate is certainly lower in the other two catgories. A portion of the 102 family applicants move from the waiting list into the private sector. I shall not weary the House with Basildon's success story of build-for-sale and starter home projects, save to say that that takes the pressure off that part of the waiting list. Similarly, some of the relationships covered by the third category do not move forward to become an actual demand on the housing resources in Basildon. If anything, although the waiting list in my constituency is stable, it has been edging downwards over the last year.
In volume 1, paragraph 56 of its second report, the Select Committee on the Environment said that waiting lists
are not per se a good indicator of real housing need".
As I said on Second Reading, wherever there is a subsidised commodity, including council or development corporation homes, there will at the same time, by the very nature of supply and demand, also be a waiting list. There will always be a waiting list for council and development corporation housing if it is not priced at the market rate.

Mr. Anthony Steen: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. As I said on Second Reading, in Liverpool 2,400 units of accommodation are vacant. That is disastrous, because the people on the waiting list never get a chance to move into those houses. It is probably true that lists all over the country are distorted. That is particularly true of new towns. Is it true of Basildon.

Mr. Proctor: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point, which I understand. He refers to housing units that are empty for some time and for several different reasons. Some care must be taken about empty units. There are several reasons why they may be empty. I happen to have the figures for Basildon with me, and I shall give them. On 21 January 1982, the development corporation had 446 units. Of those, 34 have been accepted for tenancy as from 1 February and 158 are out of use for routine maintenance and inspections. However, 157 of the units are ready for letting. In addition, some units have burst pipes as a result of recent weather conditions. Substantial work must be done on 97, and they will be out of use for longer.
To put housing in context, the number of empty units must be set beside the number on the waiting list and an analysis of that list. I support the Government's policy of trying to achieve a better balance of housing within new towns. A Conservative Administration are rightly achieving that.
On listening to the debate in Committee one would have thought that the Labour Party had a monopoly of concern about unemployment. That is not true. I am worried about the high level of unemployment in my constituency, but I know that it did not begin in May 1979. An article on unemployment in the South that appeared in The Sunday Times is relevant to the debate and to my constituency. It said:
Future jobs are likely to be in commerce and distribution—and here there is optimism. In spite of the recession and because it is a new town close to London, Basildon is the centre for a mini development boom that will see approximately £250 million spent on commercial, industrial and housing projects. The town centre shopping precinct, which will be the biggest covered shopping area in Europe, will eventually employ around 16,000 people. In the next 18 months a £50 million complex of shops and offices will be built, creating around 1,600 permanent jobs. The Distillers Company is building a £45 million bottling plant that will employ 600 people. Plans are in hand for a new industrial estate that could create another 4,000 jobs".
That is taken from not a Conservative Party handout, but from an article that appeared in The Sunday Times on 31 January 1982. It reaffirms a point that I made last week about private money and enterprise in the new towns. It underlines the success story of new towns.
My final point relates to the correlation between private and public money. I see why the State should lubricate new towns to attract—after the infrastructure—private funding. On Second Reading I raised a point which I probably did not make sufficiently clear. I refer to the short-term borrowings of development corporations.
My hon. Friend the Minister thought that I was referring to Basildon development corporation's overdraft limit. That was not the point. I was asking about short-term borrowing for roll-over projects. For example, a few years ago there was a possibility the development corporation could borrow £5 million for investment. However, it was forbidden to do that because of Treasury control. That would have provided funds for industrial factories in my constituency. Can the Minister be more sympathetic to that approach to industrial development by private funding by providing some bridging finance on a small scale for new town corporations that need it—in particular Basildon, which has raised the matter with me? I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Murphy: Before the Bill receives its Third Reading, it is right to reconsider the overall structure in relation to the completion of the new towns for which the finance will be used.
I represent two first generation new towns. There are clear lessons to be learnt from their experience for the second and third generation developments. The older new towns—if that is not a contradiction in terms—basically were established around London to reduce population pressure in the centre of the capital and to encourage industry to move out in accordance with Government policies. Subsequent new towns are being created with Government finance, for a wide variety of reasons—to

develop an already established locality, to provide housing for an existing industrial estate, to form the focus of a community and to produce employment.
The new towns that will benefit from the finance measure came into being following the Scott and Uthwatt reports and the closely linked trio of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, the location of industry measure and the New Towns Act. I have no doubt that they represented a political conception of building on State-owned land by energetic and, on the whole, highly skilled professional teams which were not bound by the restraints of public consultation and participation.
The lessons that need to be learnt to ensure a good return on the finance are these: housing—far too much rented accommodation is being built; industry—insufficient jobs are being created latterly to match the level of housing; infrastructure—its provision is often lagging behind the house building programme; and land—excessive amounts are being held for anticipated future needs. Essentially, it is a case of too much public sector involvement and too little opportunity for private enterprise.
The finance provided by the Bill should be used to ensure that the existing new towns can be completed as quickly as possible to a realistic level. But it is highly commendable that the Government have already announced the date for winding up a number of development corporations which will curtail any further unnecessary expansion at the taxpayers expense. Only natural growth should then continue, and the new towns should be fully consulted about what aspects of their community should be completed by the wind-up dates.
At the same time, the process for the transfer of assets should be given high priority, both because of the advantages gained by the town in terms of normalisation and by the redressing of the balance in favour of private ownership, and because of the finance accruing to the Treasury in return for past investment by the taxpayer. In addition, the removal of extraneous bureaucracy such as the Commission for the New Towns can only be good for the new towns.
A further and even more fundamental lesson to bear in mind when assessing the finance measure is redressing the other great imbalance—that between town and countryside. Destroying valuable countryside. be it agricultural land or areas of natural beauty, has rightly concerned many people. The Government have given serious consideration to it.
The approach that has been adopted has correctly necessitated ever greater attention being paid to the green belt, which is now a vital component of our planning policies, but already far too much countryside has fallen victim to the swathes of concrete which turn us so easily into a grey and unpleasant land. Families—particularly those in the Home Counties—want to live on the outskirts of the metropolis, not on its inskirts.

Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that Dr. Alice Coleman, in her second land utilisation study, estimated that no fewer than 60,000 acres of good agricultural land have been lost in the past 30 years? Is he not concerned that, by giving powers to new towns to increase their borrowing powers by £1 billion, we may see the erosion of the green belt going outwards from the new towns towards the outskirts of the old towns?

Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for underlining the point that I am trying to make about the need for bringing the new towns to an end as early as possible. I am sure that that is the Government's intention in bringing forward the Bill.
As I said, the approach that has been adopted has reached the point where we must recognise that no longer should the appetite of the bulldozer be appeased in the inner city. It is now essential to look inwards once more. Renovation should replace destruction; vitality should replace decay.
The Bill has provided the House with the opportunity to look again at the new towns and the way in which their finance is raised and used. This in turn provides pointers to how the inner urban areas might be regenerated, as this, too, is of paramount importance.
I quote my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) in his book "New Life for Old Cities", supported by about 50 of my hon. Friends, some of whom hope to take part in the debate:
Revitalisation of our cities will only come about if Government creates the freedom in which revitalisation is no longer prevented from happening.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I am one of those 50 supporters of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) and I should like to follow some of the remarks that have been made.
In considering the Bill, which is to allow £1 billion to be drawn or borrowed from one of four different sources, one must consider carefully whether it will have the desired effect. The book to which my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) referred tried to point out salient ways in which cities could and should be regenerated. If the money that is available from either public or private sources is a finite sum—in other words, it is only so much of a cake that can be generated from either of those sources—then, though we share the concern of right hon. and hon. Members who have new towns within their constituencies and wish to see them completed so that we can proceed with the real job of rebuilding the inner cities, which have been and are sadly neglected, we must consider whether voting such a vast sum of money will be counter-productive.
First came the planners, then the bulldozers, and then the open and wasted arid acres in the centres of cities such as Birmingham. Those centres have not been rebuilt. Too little money from either public or private sources has been made available to accomplish such rebuilding. I want this change of direction to be noted.
In the 10 years between 1967 and 1976 more than 19,000 houses were demolished in Birmingham. In the next three years, from 1977 onwards, nearly 3,000 houses were demolished. All that was administered by an authority which had 197 architects, 127 lawyers, 360 planners and 960 accountants and financial assistants to take part in this process of non-regeneration.
I agree that this money must be devoted to finishing the new towns that we have started and then, I hope—selling them off as quickly as possible and never repeating this "ginormous" planners' abortive mistake of building on green field sites until we have regenerated our towns,

unless we intend to create industrial and urban Klondikes, which in a few years' time will be as abandoned as their American counterparts were.
I ask Ministers and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides to bear in mind what I have said. We must rebuild our inner cities before it is too late, otherwise, they will be irreclaimable.

Mr. Den Dover: I want to put one question to the Minister: why do the Government want a further £500 million or £1,000 million of borrowing for the new towns? I ask that because I told the people of central Lancashire around my constituency of Chorley at the time of the last general election certain things. I said that they would have the legal right to buy their new town houses, as well as their council houses. I said that we would run down the activities of the new town in an endeavour to keep green open spaces.
I said that we would correct the massive imbalance that had taken place between rented housing and houses for sale. The ratio should have been one-quarter rented and three-quarters for sale, but under the Labour Government it had been 80-odd per cent. for rent and only 15 or 18 per cent. for sale. We wanted to redress that imbalance. The purpose of redressing that imbalance was to save rather than to spend more money, bring private enterprise into the housing market, and reduce massively public expenditure in the rented housing sector in an area where there had been 60 per cent. owner-occupation before the central Lancashire development corporation was set up about 10 years ago.
I am therefore glad that over the past two and a half years the Secretary of State and his Ministers have made clear statements that they want to have only private housing and have cut off public expenditure on rented housing. They want merely to provide an infrastructure for private housing or private industry, and perhaps provide some roads and sewers. Thus, a paradox is created.
I welcome the Under-Secretary's statement on what schemes he will allow in the period to December 1985 when the central Lancashire development corporation will be wound up. If he allows the programme to be massively run down, if he has identified certain key schemes which he will allow to proceed in the next four years, and if that expenditure is very much reduced from what it would have been if the overall strategy had been implemented and a new town had been built, much less public expenditure will be needed in central Lancashire. Indeed, the figure is £50 million or £60 million, as opposed to the sum of about £250 million that was envisaged.
If that is good enough for central Lancashire—and I welome the swing to private housing and industry away from the public housing rented sector—in line with the statement of 5 February 1981, it is very much the Government's policy throughout the United Kingdom. If that is the case—I accept that certain parts of new towns must be completed—it means that we can make massive reductions in public expenditure on new towns in the future. That is a major plank of the Conservative Government's policies in today's world.
My question to the Under-Secretary of State is: why are we looking for £500 million or £1 billion extra in borrowing? Has there been a mistake in the figures? We envisaged sales of only £200 million to £300 million, so


if we have under-achieved, surely the figure does not account for the massive leeway. I wish that question to be answered.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to take part in this important Third Reading debate at this late hour.
In striking a balance, which the Conservative Party wisely does, between public and private expenditure, the debate is a good example of how we are willing to provide more money to the public sector when it is deemed to be necessary. However, we should not forget the enormous contribution of the private sector. I wish to refer to the first generation new towns, including Hemel Hempstead, which I represent. Hemel Hempstead started with the development corporation, which came to an end some years ago. Now all the Commission for the New Towns houses are owned by the district councils. They have been following a popular policy of selling those houses to the tenants who wish to buy. It is a fallacy for Opposition Members to believe either that that policy is unpopular or that it significantly damages—if it damages in any way—the opportunity for other people to find homes in the towns.

Mr. Graham: We do not disagree that to sell a council house to a sitting tenant is unpopular. No one in his right mind would look such a gift horse in the mouth. If a sitting tenant has a house with a market value of £30,000 and along comes a good fairy who says that he can have it for £15,000, of course that is popular. We do not argue about that. We believe that it is wrong in the context of a balanced housing stock.

Mr. Lyell: I understand the sincerity with which the hon. Member speaks on such matters, but we believe that he is misguided.
I wish to carry forward the debate to consider the Commission for the New Towns' ownership of all large industrial properties. I am anxious to hear from the Minister in reply that he is taking steps to urge the Commission for the New Towns to encourage and make easier the purchase of business sites. That raises the more important question of marriage values, which may give the impression that we are talking about something quite other than a finance matter. However, the Commission for the New Towns is under the impression that it has done the State a disservice if, in selling off its assets, it does not screw the last possible penny out of the potential purchaser. It has the impression that, if the potential purchaser can make an ounce of profit out of the deal, it has failed the nation.
That is not the right attitude, because one is trying to get things moving. If the purchaser, especially the owner, can buy his property and is thereby encouraged to develop it and to expand and improve his business, and perhaps to borrow against it to create jobs elsewhere, the silver dollar is going round and private enterprise is producing the expansion that we are all anxious to achieve. We are beginning to see it in Hemel Hempstead, while coming out of the bottom of a deep world recession. Some businesses, which were not so effective in keeping up, have sold parts of their sites, which are being redeveloped by top class property companies.
They will produce new and secure jobs. I am thinking of the AM International site in Hemel Hempstead. New and secure jobs will be created in place of jobs that have sadly gone to the wall in the past two or three years.
I am glad to see expansion in other modern companies in Hemel Hempstead. It has taken place in computer machinery companies, and Interfood Ltd is taking on a second site. I could take up much of the time in this debate in referring to other opportunities for expansion that are being grasped in Hemel Hempstead.
Having primed the pump, so to speak, by setting up the new towns, we need to sell the assets to those who can make best use of them. That will release money for the Government, produce a much better return than the Government are probably getting through the Commission for the New Towns by being a landlord, and provide an opportunity for the use of energy by those who purchase to create expansion.
I shall give a small anecdotal example of how things have happened much more swiftly in the private sector in my constituency than in the public sector. This is not strictly a new town matter but it provides a good illustration. A charming old mill in Tring was purchased by the district council. The council, with the best will in the world, considered ways of developing it. For several years it considered a number of different and expensive plans. Eventually it wisely came to the view, after no improvements had been made for a number of years, that it would be better to sell it in the private market. It was sold during the past few months and now it is being renovated extremely attractively and sensitively. A building that seemed to be crumbling is now being developed. That is an example of the old story about letting a thousand flowers bloom.
There is often an important place for State intervention in getting things started, but to continue with a dogmatism that provides that assets must remain in State or quasi-State hands indefinitely is seriously to miss the point.
Another example of encouragement of self-help in my constituency is one for which the Government and the county council are entitled to credit, although the maximum credit is due to the people of Grove Hill, which is a district of Hemel Hempstead. The community wanted a youth club and it managed to raise £20,000 towards building one. The county council put in £20,000 and the Government provided £40,000. The youth club was built with an enormous amount of local initiative. I am told by the architect that the community obtained for itself a club that could not have been built in any other way for less than about £130,000. The Government and the county council supported self-help and enterprise in a locality that involved personal effort. The building of a club worth £130,000 was stimulated by an initial effort from the community of £20,000. It was backed by State funding of £60,000.
That vitality and enterprise is represented by developments in Hemel Hempstead. It is to be seen since the Government took office in the taking of important decisions for the town. I am delighted to say that a £7 million hospital development, which had been longed for for many years, has at last been given the go-ahead during the Government's tenure of office. We look forward to the bulldozers coming on to the site in September 1983. The construction of the east-west link road in Grove Hill has been brought forward. When I was first involved in the project it seemed to be 15 or 18 years away. It will provide


access to the newest and one of the most flourishing parts of Hemel Hempstead, and I am glad that it has been brought within a time scale of two or three years. That is very welcome news.
I hope that the Government will grasp the nettle and that, with a new chairman, we shall see the Commission for the New Towns—which is being given substantial extra finance—ready and willing to sell properties that it does not need to its tenants who wish to buy them on terms which give a decent return to the commission but also give a decent opportunity to the purchaser. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say that he intends to encourage that in the coming months and years.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the new towns and, particularly, about the giving of another £1 billion to the Commission for the New Towns. That signals the Government's failure to enforce the sale of the new towns' assets quickly enough. If those sales had occurred as the Government anticipated and as they were entitled to anticipate, the additional £1 billion would not be necessary. I do not have to remind the House that it is only 12 months since the Minister came to the House for additional borrowing powers for the commission.
The assumption last year was presumably that sales would take place at a faster rate. I have no doubt that in Stevenage there has been a major dragging of feet and insufficient enthusiasm shown by the commission and the Minister has not been enabled—this is a deplorable example of how the democratic influence on Government policy has been denied the opportunity of making clear its decisions—to make certain that the old new towns, such as Stevenage, were sold off to encourage and provide capital for new towns and particularly for urban development in new towns. That was the obligation given to Stevenage and yet it was denied by the commission.
I passionately feel that housing development and industrial development have been inhibited by the fact that the commission has not sold large parts of the land to the east of Stevenage which is practically the only land available for industry and housing development in Hertfordshire. That is why the Minister had to come to the House for an additional borrowing requirement for the commission. In those circumstances, I would normally oppose the additional £1 billion borrowing requirement for the commision because only in that way could I demonstrate the frustration of Stevenage at the dilatory manner in which the commission conducted this business.
The Minister visited Stevenage in May last year to try to speed up the process of applying for planning permission by the commission for just a small part of the available housing land. We are not talking about development for development's sake; we are talking about jobs for the building contractors of Stevenage and, therefore, for their employees. What happened? Planning permission was applied for and the borough council has not approved the application, nine months after the Minister tried to encourage development on that land.
That is a disgraceful record on the part of the Commission for the New Towns. What is more, there are many more acres where it should have applied for planning permission. That land can provide starter homes. It is the

way in which ordinary people can begin to own some part of the country. The basic objective that the Minister set out in his programme of house purchase has been denied by the commission.
It makes me furious that the Minister must apply once more to the House for an additional sum of money to achieve the objectives that my constituents voted for at the last election. I want to see the Minister achieve the objectives that we set out for the people of Stevenage. I want to see development in what is proving to be a town in which the genius of the British people can be allowed to flower, yet is being stultified by the fact that no sales are taking place.
The way in which the Ministry has laid down the values at which that property may be sold is an inhibition to the purchase. The market value situation is an art that should be financed by the Minister for the Arts. However, it is being used as a weapon by the Commission for the New Towns and others to prevent the tenants of the factories and of the houses from purchasing the land owned by the commission.
The Minister must take extraordinary powers and galvanise his enthusiasm and energy to stop that. In normal circumstances, if he were not a Minister in a Government whom I support, I would oppose the additional borrowing to force the Government to force those sales, to obtain the enthusiasm and enterprise necessary to make the sales and make the money available for the development of old town centres and for new towns, to roll the money over and to make Stevenage a new town in which the community can stand on its own feet.
To do that the Minister must take into account the fact that the new town of Stevenage is over-rated. Over-rating is an inhibitor to its development and to those who would invest in the town. Ministers need to pay attention to that matter. The new towns need a special rating factor. It should be recognised that they were developed as new towns that were designed with more public land and facilities than other towns, which must be paid for in a short time. That means that a special element must be entered into the new towns' rating calculation that will enable them to attract business and will enable the Government to sell the industrial land. It should be sold not just at market value, whatever that is, but at the price that it can be sold for right now, so that the money can be given to the Minister and he does not have to borrow another £1 billion. It can be rolled over and used in old town centres and new towns and Stevenage can become a town standing on its own feet with its own dignity, attracting the most ambitious and enterprising people of this country to expand the industries which exist there.

Mr. Steen This: debate has raised a number of passions and shown the strength of feeling throughout the House about the importance of the new towns and the consequences of asking the House to approve a further borrowing of £1 billion of public money to help their development.
I congratulate my hon. Friends on the very high quality of debate. Their short, succinct speeches and telling points have been in contrast with the Opposition speeches in Committee. None the less, the Opposition speeches have shown the passionate feelings aroused by the problems of


the new towns. I appreciate that not every hon. Member has been in rapturous delight about the time of night at which the debate began, nor about its length.
Those who were not rapturously delighted are perhaps those who do not fully understand the importance of the urban areas and the new towns. Indeed, those who are not ecstatic about the debate probably represent constituencies south of Watford, where there are very few new towns and the problems of the urban areas are perhaps not fully felt, and where Son. Members prefer to go home rather than to debate the problems with which we are concerned and a Bill which will bring a further £1 billion to the service of those problems. Moreover, we are not only talking about the new towns, although the Bill concerns them specifically. Giving £1 billion in public funds to the larger new towns must have a profound effect upon the other conurbations. In any case, why should we not debate the new towns at this time of night?
Last Tuesday we were asked to come and make speeches. I was told to make a good long speech, so I prepared one. Halfway through the debate, however, I was told that I had better keep it short, so I cut the long speech and planned a short one. When I came into the Chamber, however, I was told to make it a little longer so as to spin out the debate. I rushed out to fetch my notes for the long speech and stuck them to the short speech.
The problem is that when one makes a long speech in the Chamber one incurs the dissatisfaction and displeasure of the Chair, but when one makes a short speech nobody really understands it because it is too short. I have therefore been caught between Scylla and Charybdis. Either I cut my speeches to the point at which they make no sense, or I make a long speech and displease everybody in the Chamber. I should have thought that at this time of night, however, at least a few people would be prepared to allow a slightly longer debate on a matter which causes concern, especially as 80 per cent. of the populations live in new towns and urban areas.
The Bill will have enormous ramifications. It will increase the amount of public funds to the new towns, not by £1 million or £100 million, but by £1 billion. That is an extraordinarily large sum. It amounts to £500 million now and £500 million a little later. [Interruption.] The problem that faces me is now demonstrated. I have just started to speak and I am told that I should sit down. I hope that I am able to continue a little further with the speech that I am trying to develop.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that debate on the Third Reading of a Bill has to relate to what is contained within the Bill. I have no control over the length of speeches, but the hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to what is contained within the Bill.

Mr. Steen: I intend to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Had the measure been brought forward by a Labour Government, the sums of money contained in it would probably have been fought tooth and nail by the Conservative Opposition. Because the Bill is introduced by this Government, Conservative Members will support the Third Reading, even though public expenditure will be increased.
What are the reasons for the Bill? Why is this borrowing taking place? Does it result from higher interest charges? Can the Minister give the old interest charges,

the capital sum and the amount of extra money that has to be found? Hon. Members are advised that the privatisation of the new towns has failed to take place as quickly as the Government would have liked. Will the Minister confirm that this is the case? Has the flow of money from the sale of new town assets not materialised? What was the estimated flow? What is the current flow? What is the shortfall?
It is only right that the Minister should explain why so much additional money is needed from the public purse. If hon. Members are not given the information tonight, they are unlikely ever to receive it. One wonders whether the civil servants advising the Minister have pulled a fast one over him and have convinced him that unless the borrowing power is increased the new towns will go into the red. What if they do go into the red? What evidence exists that that will happen? Which new towns will go into the red? And when?

Mr. Murphy: I suggest that my hon. Friend should rephrase his remark. It is a known fact that most new towns have gone into the blue and intend to stay that way.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend's comments are worth making, but I do not wish to delay the progress of the Bill. The question that I raise is whether it matters if new towns go into the red. How many have already gone into the red? How much money has already been realised from the sale of assets? Has there been any cross-financing? Has the money realised in one new town been used to subsidise another? Has the Minister asked his officials these questions? If he has received answers, will he announce them to the House? If he has not received answers, how can he ask the House to approve £1 billion?
Conservative Members, both from the new towns and the older cities, are concerned about the Bill's implications. As I said on Second Reading, the evidence from our cities on the effect of increased levels of public intervention is that it drives out private enterprise. The more public money is pumped into the ailing urban areas, the faster people move out. We have seen evidence of that in the past 30 years. The faster we pump public money into the older industrial areas, the faster the people, firms and jobs leave, the faster the homes deteriorate and the faster the rate base shrinks and rate income is lost.
Public intervention at such levels was originally meant for ambitious redevelopment plans. Local authorities borrowed £455 million in 1965, £398 million in 1967, £589 million in 1968 and £556 million in 1969 to carry out major development programmes. That level of public borrowing provided the resources that allowed the major cities to embark upon massive demolition, which caused Glasgow to lose 21 per cent. of its population, Liverpool 22 per cent., Manchester 18 per cent. and inner London 16 per cent.
What the public authorities commissioned was a direct result of the increased borrowing powers that gave them the funds to do what they did then. The Bill gives the new towns in the 1980s similar powers to those of the older cities in the 1960s, but instead of giving loans for redevelopment the House is tonight being asked for money for unspecified development.
Admittedly the older cities were rebuilding in order to replace what they had demolished, but where cid they rebuild? They rebuilt on green field sites outside the city boundaries. The new towns are built on green field sites


outside the city boundaries, but whereas the public borrowing in the 1960s resulted in massive council housing estates being built mainly on green field sites on the periphery of the cities, the public borrowing of the 1980s is for infrastructure and houses and to help spread the sprawl of the new towns outwards. This will provide even greater attractions for those living in the older cities, and this will move them out into the new towns, causing the loss of good agricultural land—a loss that will continue unabated.
The House has perhaps never quite comprehended the scale of that. Dr. Alice Coleman suggests in her second land utilisation study that 60,000 acres of food-producing land are disappearing each year. The Department of the Environment estimates that in the five years to 1979 the average annual loss of agricultural land was about 100,000 acres, of which 30,000 were for urban development. However, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said that the average yearly loss of agricultural land to development or other uses, excluding woodland, in the five-year period ending June 1980 was 45,800 acres. In answer to a question on 12 November 1981, my right hon. Friend the Minister said:
The average annual loss of agricultural land to urban development in England during the five-year period June 1975 to June 1980 was estimated at 8,400 hectares."—[Official Report, 12 November 1981; Vol. 12, c. 644.]
Every one of those answers from each Government Department is different, but whether we accept the lowest or the highest figure it is a dramatic loss of good agricultural land.
In the 1960s the Government closed their eyes to the effect of their policies on the loss of food-producing land. The Bill looks like going the same way.

Mr. Lyell: Can my hon. Friend, who is conversant with the figures, give us the overall figure for the amount of unused or underused urban land to contrast with all the agricultural land that is being taken up unnecessarily?

Mr. Steen: The figure comes readily to hand. The latest estimates are from the Civic Trust. It estimates that in the major conurbations 250,000 acres are dormant, derelict or vacant, of which approximately two-thirds is in public ownership—not just local authority ownership but nationalised industry ownerships and so on.
In the 'sixties, successive Governments lent sizeable sums of money to redevelop the older industrial area. People were pushed to the outskirts and the urban sprawl was pushed outwards. What could happen—the Minister should take this extremely seriously—is that by lending a further £1 billion to the new towns the urban sprawl will move outwards. That would result in the loss taking place on the edges of the new towns, just as it took place on the edges of the old towns.
With the new money the new towns may be pushed out towards the periphery of the old towns, which would reduce the wedge of agricultural land in between. The basis of the new towns was to provide an overspill for the old towns, but the old towns are expanding outwards. In 1982 we could be agreeing to the erosion of the green belt from the other direction. In years to come we could end up with a continuous urban sprawl from the new towns to the old. There will be one large suburban area, similar to parts of the eastern United States, with continuous town after town.
My concern is whether the funds should be used for this purpose. How will the Minister stop it from happening? We have heard the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food confirm that in his view it is important to halt green field site development until we have filled the vacant wasteland sites in the inner areas. We should do that in preference to allowing further agricultural land loss. Will the Minister confirm that he will not allow the Bill to finance the continuation of urban sprawl? Unless the Minister has detailed plans of how the money will be used in each new town, he must be concerned that he is giving tacit consent to further destruction of food-producing land.
We are approving the injection of an enormous sum of public money into a few selected areas, but there is overwhelming evidence that the time is right for many of them to give up their special status. By giving those areas more public money the Bill is extending their active life. Is that really what we want? More public expenditure will result in a continued population drain from the older cities. Good food-producing land will continue to be lost. It is for these reasons that I and my hon. Friends representing both old and new towns are deeply concerned. The Minister should consider the effects of the Bill extremely seriously.
If it is the Government's intention to sell off the assets why is the Commission for the New Towns not being wound up? Why do we not have a date for the disappearance of this quango? Will the Minister fix a date for its demise?
On Second Reading the Minister confirmed that the money to be borrowed would in no way prejudice the level of Government funding to older cities, but that begs the question. The Bill's effects may be far more devastating than to reduce by a few million pounds the money going to inner urban areas. The growth of new towns could be the major threat to the revitalisation of our principal cities. Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield and Newcastle all need revitalisating. They need people, skills, jobs and new firms. They will not get them if the new towns continue to act as a magnet to the inner urban population. The £1 billion of borrowed money could well sustain the magnet and continue to drain the older inner city areas of their population.
Nor should public borrowing be seen as an end in itself. We need a partnership. As I said on Second Reading, we should use public money to attract private money. It is too easy to spend from the public purse in the hope that private money will be forthcoming. That is the mistake of the UDCs. They believe that by using public funds to provide the infrastructure for the docklands and so on private capital will follow. It may not.
Unless the Government are committed to capitalising on private finance, we cannot be sure that public investment is the best possible value. Why is the Bill silent on private investment? Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the Treasury will not permit the new towns to borrow from the private sector. If the Government are committed to privatising the new towns and encouraging private funds, why are the new towns being prevented from borrowing money from the private banks and the private purse?
I have explained my concern about the impact of the Bill. I conclude by asking the Minister seriously to consider introducing industrial revenue and municipal bonds. The new towns and old towns could be designated special areas in which the local authorities could issue bonds that could be purchased by private institutions from


the corporations. They would be tax exempt. The institutions would get paid interest by the corporations at 3 or 4 per cent. below the bank rate. The investors would get the interest on their money tax-free. The corporation would attract private funds. With the cash they could generate new rate income and new jobs.
For example, instead of giving the new towns £1 billion, we could allow them to issue tax-exempt bonds for infrastructure and industrial development. In either case the lending institution would be getting an attractive deal and the corporation would be borrowing money from the private rather than the public sector. Bonding would not cost anything. It would generate new jobs, create more rate income and provide an incentive for the private sector to invest in ailing older urban areas and new towns.
The Bill may not be needed. I am not opposed to giving new towns more finance, but I need to be satisfied about the effects of such funding and particularly about the damage that it may do. It might do good; it might do harm. It gives exclusively public money to exclusively quasi-public corporations, which will inevitably further distort the market economy and could put yet another nail in the coffin of the older cities. It could also damage the new towns.

Mr. Graham: I rise to reverse the trend of recent speeches and support the Government wholeheartedly and without reservation.
I acknowledge that every hon. Member has spoken with absolute authority because he has done so from his own experience as well as from the heart. The Government ought to be warned that to the casual observer—as I have been for the last hour or so—however they consider they are carrying out their remit, they are not going far enough or fast enough for some Conservative Members. Therein lies the great difference between us.
Labour Members have never argued that once the new towns were established, managed and financed that was the end of it and there would never be any change. The handing over of the new towns to local people and changes in their democracy have always been accepted by Labour Members as a continuing exercise. It is a question of when and how.
The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) talked about bringing the new towns to an end as quickly as possible. I shudder to think what he meant. It is one thing to talk about the designation of an existing new town, how it is to be managed and financed and its assets distributed. However, during the debate the hon. Gentleman nodded vigorously at many of the phrases that in effect meant that there would be a dissolution of the new towns as we know them and a complete transformation to something completely different.
Conservative Members may sincerely believe that that is what their constituents want. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) was not present on Second Reading, nor was he here for the Committee stage. He came into the Chamber for part of the Third Reading debate and has now gone. He said that his constituents were furious at the Government's ineptitude. I suggest that they are angry at the Government for more cogent reasons than the manner in which they are allowing the sale of new town assets. A whole range of things affect the

constituents of Hertford and Stevenage and elsewhere far more directly than this issue, important as it is. The hon. Gentleman should put it into perspective.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) welcomed the Bill because it would enable the assets to be sold as quickly as possible. That is municipal vandalism. We are being asked to build sound commercial businesses and sell them once they are profitable. That puts out of balance the portfolio of the town's management. In effect, we are selling off the profitable bits and leaving the district council or development corporation with what is left. They will then be accused of being bad managers because they do not have a balanced portfolio.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) and others rightly drew attention to the fact that we are not looking at new towns in isolation. The Bill is narrowly drawn, but, as an hon. Member representing an urban constituency, I am concerned at the problems in the new towns. Equally, hon. Members who represent new towns should realise that what appears to be good for them has connotations for others. I accept the unity of interest between those hon. Members who represent new towns and those who represent other areas.
The hon. Member for Wavertree was a bit unfair to the Minister, although no doubt that was, on more than one occasion, his design. He asked why the Bill was being introduced now. On Second Reading, the Minister made a fleeting reference to that and later the Under-Secretary spelt out the two reasons, which are both admissions of failure. The Government underestimated the speed at which they could persuade development corporations to sell the property, and the interest rate. The marketability of the property and the justice of the matter are other issues. However, both the speed at which development corporations could be persuaded to sell and the interest rate fall within the Government's domain.
The hon. Member for Wavertree asked many other questions and I wish him better luck than Opposition Members have so far had. However, I understand that it is not always possible for the Minister or the officials in the Box to give an answer to every question. It is right that questions should be asked and that they should go on the record. Next week, I and other hon. Members will read the debate and return to the questions to which we have not received answers and will ask them again.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage has returned to the Chamber. I am grateful to him because he was the only Conservative Member, representing a new town, to have the courtesy, grace and good sense to plead for his new town in the context of the new town factor in the rating system. The Government should acknowledge that factor. I understand the problem of giving special rating for special circumstances, but no other Conservative Member—

Mr. Proctor: To be fair to other Conservative Members, I should put it on the record that several hon. Members raised that point on Second Reading.

Mr. Graham: The speech made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage impressed me more than the other speeches. Therefore, this is an all-party, new town point. I hope that the Government and the new towns will be able to work in a better ambiance and that the Minister and his colleagues will consider that point.
I certainly give the Bill a warm welcome.

Sir George Young: We have listened, on Third Reading, to several speeches of high quality. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) opened the batting in the second innings with a purposeful speech, which swept the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) to the boundary time after time. The importance of his speech was that he showed that crude statistics on waiting lists can be misleading and must be interpreted carefully to find out exactly what is happening in a town.
We are all delighted to hear of the growth in the number of new firms moving into my hon. Friend's constituency and of the Corporation's success in generating inward investment. My hon. Friend asked me about short-term borrowings by corporations, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Stead) also touched on that point. If the development corporation takes the risk on the development, the expenditure is public, and it must be controlled as such. The only question is the most economical way of financing that public expenditure. Successive Governments have held that public expenditure would be financed most economically if the necessary borrowing were managed centrally. Nevertheless, I shall reconsider short-term Exchequer loans. If the private sector takes the risk, that is a different matter.
Several of my hon. Friends asked about the rundown of the programme of developing houses for rent. In 1978–79 a total of 7,005 development corporation homes were built for rent. That figure will decline to 1,330 in 1982–83. The last few of the rented schemes approved in 1980 are coming through as completions. From now rented schemes will be the exception and will have to be cleared personally by Ministers. That has been balanced by a substantial increase in the building of properties for sale. The statistics for that have risen from 2,900 in 1978–79 to the 8,374 that are planned next year.
A number of my hon. Friends asked about plans for winding down the commission. The Government's firm intention is to do that. Already we have made substantial progress in reducing staff numbers. The regional offices are being closed, with the exception of Corby, and are being concentrated on London. That has a beneficial effect on staff numbers and overheads.
The disengagement is being pursued energetically. Our policy is to wind up the commission, but legislation is required. A major disposal programme is under way.

Mr. Bowen Wells: May we have an assurance that the necessary legislation to wind up the commission will be introduced in this Parliament?

Sir George Young: I cannot give that assurance, because the legislative programme does not rest in my hands, but my hon. Friend's comment will be noted in the appropriate quarters.
Some of my hon. Friends rightly pressed for more and faster privatisation. Of course, it takes two to tango. The sales of assets require not only that the new town be a willing seller—and certainly we shall do what we can on that—but that a buyer be able and willing to purchase the property at a fair price. Property put on the market has to attract interest from investors. As I said on Second Reading, many sitting tenants at this stage have not felt able to pay a fair proportion of the marriage value, given the present interest rates and the world recession.
Some of my hon. Friends suggested that more private capital for new development might be attracted to the new towns. Forward funding of development corporation-sponsored new development by financial institutions and the like amounted to £20 million in 1978–79 before we took office, rose to £76 million in 1980–81 and is expected to be £50 million in the current financial year. That is over and above the sum spent by private firms building their own factories on land made available by corporations. So, new towns are seeking as much private risk capital as possible in that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) put an inner city dimension on the issue, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree. No one is keener than I am on rebuilding the inner cities, because I represent a constituency with inner city problems. May I tell my hon. Friends who subscribe to "New Life for Old Cities"—a stimulating publication—that Ministers are considering the proposals in it? We shall respond to them in due course.
Hon. Members will appreciate the existing scale of private investment in the new towns. I have given a figure for that. If one adds up the forward funding of the £76 million development by the development corporations, the £37 million investment in offices and shops, the £38 million in industrial space and the £100 million in housing provided by private funding on land sold to the private sector, one comes to a total of £250 million of private investment in the new towns. That compares well with the gross public capital investment of £310 million in the same period. We are trying to achieve a partnership.
Not all the new towns are on green field sites. One should not forget the contributions by corporations such as Warrington and Runcorn to urban renewal in the old towns within their designated areas.
Some hon. Members asked why we had to introduce the Bill. The reasons were set out in the Minister of State's speech on Second Reading on 26 January at columns 757 and 758. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) my hon. Friend set out some of the major projects that would be funded in the next few years in the new towns. I am sure that the Members for those new towns will appreciate the investment that is to take place in them.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to two matters. First, it is rewarding to learn that so much private money is going into the new towns, but the more private money that goes into them, plus the £1 billion provided for in the Bill, the greater will be the disincentive for private money to go to the older urban areas. I was proposing industrial revenue bonds and municipal bonds to give some incentive to private investment. Secondly, the more money we give to the new towns, the more they will move outwards. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that point. How does he propose to stop the erosion of the green belt?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is now moving into a slightly wider area. He has raised an issue that is the concern of the Treasury, namely, how we finance public investment. One of my hon. Friends from the Treasury is on the Front Bench, and I know that he will have taken that point on board.
The other matter is basically a planning rather than a public expenditure matter—namely, what percentage of


the country we designate for agriculture and for development. Such issues are dealt with in the structure plans. They are not central matters for the Bill. I remind my hon. Friend that on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that the new town programme had effectively been raided to put more money into the inner cities I hope that he accepts that we have our priorities right. We are putting more money into the inner cities and trying to bring to an end the investment programme in the new towns. A substantial amount of the money that will be borrowed under the terms of the Bill will be used to pay interest on the accrued deficit in past programmes. Therefore, not all the money will go into more public investment in the new towns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley knows that we have recently turned down some proposals for industrial development at Shade Lane in the Yarrow Valley because of the unsuitability of the site on environmental grounds. I know that he will respond to the consultation document on the future of the Central Lancashire new town.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) summed up very well the approach that we should adopt in disposing of assets when he referred to the taxpayer and the purchaser getting a reasonable return. That must be the objective of Ministers. If any hon. Members feel that the Commission for the New Towns is not being reasonable in its relationships with their constituents, they can refer the matter to Ministers, who will be interested in looking into it. I agree that the State does not have to hold on to all the assets in the new towns for ever and a day and that there is a strong argument for selling them and recycling the money. I was delighted to hear of the high gearing that has been achieved for the youth club in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Lyell: What will be the approach of the Commission for the New Towns in deciding the return that it should seek or how it should price those sites that have marriage values?

Sir George Young: When I wound up the debate on 26 January—I seem to do nothing but wind up debates on new town Bills—I tried to define the marriage value and how the bonus should be divided. I cannot go much further than that. I think the point is taken that all the bonus should not go to the Commission for the New Towns. The chap buying the site is entitled to a share of the action. If my

hon. and learned Friend feels that there is some unreasonableness about which Ministers should know, I urge him to refer it to us and we will see what we can do.
Generally, we are asking the commission to carry out a careful review of all its development sites to ensure that they are offered at proper prices. At regular intervals my hon. Friend and I look at the progress that the commission is making in disposing of its sites.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) spoke about the sites to the east of his constituency. I visited them a few days ago. We are in correspondence with the CNT with a view to developing these sites. I shall take a personal interest in the matter to make sure that action is taken.
On the question of grant-related expenditure assessments for constituencies, there is an open invitation to see whether the formula can be improved in any way, as I said on Second Reading. We have to do that in a way that is fair to all parts of the country and is genuinely based on extra needs in the new towns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree wound up the debate for me with a general tour d'horizon and put the Bill in a slightly broader perspective. He is right to say that the rate of disposals has taken a little longer to build up than Ministers predicted, but the target is the same. It is the speed at which we achieve it that is behind the need to have the Bill earlier than we had envisaged. Some towns are in surplus and others are in deficit. If my hon Friend wishes to know which are which, he will find the information in the annual accounts of each corporation. It will be a fascinating exercise for him.
I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the Bill being used to finance urban sprawl. The planning controls will ensure that. The new towns have designated areas which it is planned they are to develop. That is the constraint on their future expansion.
My hon. Friend also raised the matter of industrial development bonds, which I shall take up with the Treasury.
The Bill is unusual in that we have had three Second Reading debates in quick succession. I hope that after all three of them the House will now agree to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed.

Bill accordingly read the Third Time and passed.

Orders of the Day — House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I beg to move,
That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:-
Amendments of Part I

1.—(1) In the entry "Stipendiary Magistrate within the meaning of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949" for the words "the Justices of the Peace Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "the Justices of the Peace Act 1979".
2.In the entry beginning "Resident Magistrate" the words "the Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1935 or" shall be omitted.
3.For the entry "Chief or other National Insurance

Commissioner" there shall be substituted the following entry—
Chief or other Social Security Commissioner (excluding a person appointed in pursuance of section 13(5) of the Social Security Act 1980).".

4.For the entry "Chief or other National Insurance Commissioner for Northern Ireland" there shall be substituted the following entry—

Chief or other Social Security Commissioner for Northern Ireland (excluding a person appointed in pursuance of section 13(5) of the Social Security Act 1980).".
Amendments of Part II

2. There shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
"The Attendance Allowance Board for Northern Ireland. The Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland.
The Civil Service Appeal Board.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
The Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland.
The Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland. The Labour Relations Agency.
The Livestock Marketing Commission for Northern Ireland.
The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Northern Ireland. The National Consumer Council.
The Northern Ireland Civil Service Appeal Board. The Northern Ireland Economic Council.
The Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
The Northern Ireland Tourist Board.
The Parole Board for Scotland constituted under section 59 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
The Planning Appeals Commission established under Article 88 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.
The Tribunal established under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958.
The Water Appeals Commission for Northern Ireland."
3. The following entries shall be omitted—
"The Channel Tunnel Planning Council.
The Employment Service Agency.
The Location of Offices Bureau.
The Metrication Board.
The Ministry of Defence (Army Department) Teachers Selection Board.
The National Health Service Staff Commission.
A Panel of Chairmen of Re-instatement Committees constituted under section 41 of the National Service Act 1948.
The Property Commission for Scotland established under section 224 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
The Staff Commission established under section 85(5) of the London Government Act 1963.
The Staff Commission for England established under section 257 of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Staff Commission for Scotland established under section 218 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

The Staff Commission for Wales established under section 258 of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Training Services Agency.
The Water Resources Board.
The Welsh National Health Service Staff Commission.".
4.In the entry beginning "An Independent Schools Tribunal" for the words "Schedule 7 to the Education (Scotland) Act 1962" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 2 to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980".
Amendments of Part III
5.There shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
"Chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board. Chairman of the Dental Committee of the Northern Ireland
Central Services Agency for the Health and Social Services.
Chairman of the Domestic Coal Consumer Council. Chairman of the Electricity Consumer Council. Chairman of Enterprise Ulster.
Chairman of the Management Committee of the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service.
Chairman of the Manpower Services Committee for Scotland.
Chairman of the Manpower Services Committee for Wales.
Chairman of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. Chairman of the Prescription Pricing Agency.
Chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights constituted under section 20 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
Chairman of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. Director of the British Aerospace Public Limited Company appointed subject to the approval of a Minister or government department.
Director of British Nuclear Fuels Limited.
Director of Harland and Wolff Limited.
Director of International Military Services Limited. Director of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company.
Director of Short Brothers Limited.
Governor or Administrator of a dependent territory within the meaning of section 50(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales.
Her Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland. Her Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.
Lay observer appointed under Article 42 of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
Levy Exemption Referee for the purposes of the Industrial Training Act 1982.
Member of the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Member of a panel of persons who may be appointed to consider representations in accordance with section3(4)(b) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973. Member of the Board of the Royal Ordnance Factories. Member of a panel of persons who may be appointed to serve on a Vaccine Damage Tribunal.
Person appointed to hear and decide appeals under the Trade Marks Act 1938.
President, or member of a panel of chairmen, of industrial tribunals established under section 13 of the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.
Returning Officer under section 17(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 and any Deputy Returning Officer appointed by him.".
6.The following entries shall be omitted—
"Accountant of Court appointed under section 25 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933. Agent for Northern Ireland in Great Britain.
Chairman of a Regional Economic Planning Council. Clerk of the Crown and Peace in Northern Ireland.
Clerk of the Peace in Scotland.
Clerk or Assistant Clerk of Petty Sessions in Northern Ireland.
Director appointed at a salary of Industrial Advisers to the Blind Limited.


Director appointed at a salary of the National Institute for Housecraft (Employment and Training) Limited.
Director of the Peterhead Bay (Management) Company Limited.
Member of the Council of the National Computing Centre appointed at a salary by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
Member of a panel of valuers appointed at an annual salary under section 4 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890.
Member of the Permanent Joint Hops Committee appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
Officer or other member of the County Court Service within the meaning of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.
Principal Clerk of Justiciary appointed under section 25 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933.
Procurator fiscal or procurator fiscal depute appointed under the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927.
Sheriff clerk or sheriff clerk depute.
Substitution Officer of the Royal Air Force.".

7.—(1) In the entry relating to Ambassador after the word "Ambassador" there shall be inserted the words "or Permanent Representative to an international organisation".
(2)In the entry relating to Chairman of an Appeal Tribunal for the words "under Schedule 3 to the Supplementary Benefits etc. Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 4 to the Supplementary Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1977"
(3)For the entry beginning "Chairman of any of the Consultative Councils" there shall be substituted the following entries—
"Chairman of any of the Consultative Councils established under section 7 of the Electricity Act 1947 for the Area Boards in England and Wales.
Chairman of either of the Consultative Councils continued in existence by section 17(1) of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 for the districts of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board.".
(4)In the entry beginning "Chairman of a Local Tribunal" for the words "section 94(2)", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "section 97(2)".
(5)For the entry beginning "Chief Electoral Office" there shall be substituted the following entry
"Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland or any whole time officer appointed under section 14A(1) of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962."
(6)In the entry beginning "Distributor of Stamps" the words "Manchester or" shall be omitted.
(7)In the entry beginning "Industrial Assurance Commissioner" for the words "Industrial Assurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1924" there shall be substituted the words "Industrial Assurance (Northern Ireland) Order 1979".
(8)For the entry "Lay observer appointed under section 7 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1976" there shall be substituted the following entry
"Lay observer appointed under section 49 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.".
(9)In the entry beginning "Member of an Agricultural Marketing Board appointed under section 2 of the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1933" the words from "section 2" to "1933 or" shall be omitted.
(10)In the entry beginning "Member appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the Agricultural Wages Board" for the words "the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" there shall be substituted the words "a Minister of the Crown".
(11)In the entry beginning "Member appointed by the Head of the Department or Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland" the words "or Minister" shall be omitted.
(12)In the entry beginning "Member of a Wages Council or Central Co-ordinating Committee appointed under paragraph 1 (a) of Schedule 1 to the Wages Councils Act (Northern Ireland) 1945" the words from "or Member" to the end shall be omitted.

Amendment of Part IV

8. After the entry beginning "Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for the district of the city of Aberdeen" the following entry shall be inserted—
"Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant or Lieutenant for a county or county borough in Northern Ireland.
Any constituency comprising the whole or part of the area for which he is appointed.".
9.—(1) In the entry beginning "Her Majesty's Lieutenant for Greater London" after the word "Majesty's" there shah be inserted the words "Lord-Lieutenant or".
(2) In the entry beginning "Her Majesty's Lieutenant for a county" after the word "Majesty's" there shall be inserted the words "Lord-Lieutenant or".'.

The purpose of the motion is to seek the approval of the House to the amendment by Order in Council of schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. This is in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 5(1) of the Act. This procedure has been followed on four previous occasions—in 1961, when the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Sir Edward Boyle, moved the motion; in 1963, when it was taken on the nod; in 1968, when Lord Lever, the then Financial Secretary, moved it; and in 1975, when it was taken on the nod. So the procedures that we are following tonight have been used on four previous occasions. They flow from the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957. The 1957 Act was passed following reports by two Select Committees of the House of Commons, and brought together various statutory provisions disqualifying from membership of the House of Commons the holders of certain public offices. That Act was consolidated in 1975.
Schedule 1 to the Act lists those offices whose holders are disqualified. It has been the normal practice for any legislation which establishes new offices to add them to the schedule of those disqualified and for legislation to wind up existing statutory offices to delete those offices from the schedule. The 1975 Act is reprinted from time to time, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to incorporate the amendments which have been made to its schedule by other legislation. This maintains the intention behind the 1975 Act that a clear statement should be available of those public offices whose holders are disqualified. The last reprint was made on 1 January 1981.
In addition, from time to time it is necessary to bring the schedule up to date by Order in Council to add offices which have been created by administrative action and to amend or correct existing entries or to delete offices which are no longer appropriate. That is what we are trying to do in the motion.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister said that the amendments arise in the case of offices created by administrative action. Is that comprehensive in view of the nature of many of the offices set out in the motion?

Mr. Hayhoe: I was trying to show only that the matters with which we are dealing have not been expressly dealt with by specific legislation, which would have been incorporated in the normal reprinting. It was not meant to be a wholly exclusive reason, although it is broadly the reason for a substantial number of the matters that will come forward. Over 100 amendments are before the House for consideration.
The 1975 Act does not state firm rules governing who should be disqualified, but there are general criteria by which the House has been guided over the years. One is that those who are appointed to offices by Ministers, or by


the Crown on the advice of Ministers, should be precluded from membership of the House. In addition, some public offices involve duties that might make it impossible for their holders to fulfill their parliamentary duties satisfactorily. In others it is important that the occupants should seem to be politically neutral. I reiterate points made by my predecessors when moving similar motions in recent years.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: What is the process by which Ministers decide who should appear on the schedule that is to be placed before the House for its consideration?

Mr. Hayhoe: Ministers consider the matters in their areas of responsibility. The matters are brought together and consolidated in the motion that I am moving. They make their judgments in the light of the principles and criteria that have been followed in the past.
The motion proposes over 100 amendments to schedule 1, with four amendments to the existing entries in part I, which lists certain judicial offices. In part H, which lists all the bodies whose members are disqualified, the changes are 19 additions, 15 deletions and one amendment to an existing entry. There are 32 additional entries, 17 deletions and 12 amendments to existing entries in part III. There is one additional entry and two amendments to existing entries in part IV, which covers offices disqualifying people from representing particular constituencies.
I know that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has asked why some Northern Ireland bodies, which were not included in the list of those disqualified in 1975, are now listed in the motion. Those Northern Ireland bodies have been included in the motion because they meet the disqualifying criteria. At present, appointees to those bodies owe their appointments to Ministers in the United Kingdom Government, and they are being treated in the same way as similar appointments in other parts of Britain. It has been asked whether it represents a departure in policy by the Government. I can make it clear that it is not. The inclusion of these bodies merely reflects present realities but not the future intentions of the Government.
I or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), will be prepared to deal with any specific issues that are raised during the debate. I hope that as on previous occasions the House will give its approval to the amendments and resolve that the Order in Council be accepted.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The procedure that we adpot on these occasions is far from satisfactory. We have under the 1975 Act what is set out as reprint No. 6. The Library keeps the statutes up to date and the sheaves of loose leaf paper reveal the changes that have been made since 1975. They reveal also changes in the patronage that is at the disposal of the Government.
The purpose of the 1957 and 1975 Acts and the principle that underlies the Acts is the need to prevent undue patronage in the House and to reflect the incompatibility between membership of the House and the holding of certain other offices where it is thought that the

amount of time and effort devoted to them might impede the work of the Member. Before the 1957 Act the holding of offices of trivial value might have been held to be the holding of an office of profit under the Crown, so disqualifying a person coming to this place, whereas in a sense there was not the degree of patronage that would have justified such important action.
The origin of these powers lies with the King's Party. Those who did not belong to the King's Party feared that the Monarch would take effective control of the House through the exercise of patronage. Under the Act of Queen Anne, which probably went too far, any Minister could be excluded. Obviously changes were necessary.
We are discussing the way in which the House is relatively free of the control of the Executive. However, we know that 95 Ministers have their office of profit under the Crown and that they are excluded by all the Acts that come before us dealing with these matters.
The greatest degree of patronage concerns the 95 Ministers. In fact, we are considering not only the 95 as there are others who are expecting or hoping and there are the PPSs. The total may be 150. They are to be regarded as a proportion not of the 635 Members of this place but of the Government party, which effectively determines what goes on in the House. Therefore, we are talking about 100 to 150 Members of Parliament in receipt of patronage, or who hope or expect to be in receipt of it, out of the 300 to 340 Government Members.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept a certain modification. The expectation is actual in the case of the Government's supporters, but there is an equal and opposite expectation on the part of the supporters of the Opposition of the day, although it is subject to a certain deferment and qualification. But surely the right hon. Gentleman goes too far when he treats the effect of patronage as operating only on the Government Benches.

Mr. Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman anticipated my remarks because, in practice, with a firm Government majority, Governments change their minds not so much due to the Opposition's actions as to the actions of Government Back Benchers. It is the Back-Bench pressure that is so important in changing the minds of Government Ministers.
We know what effectively happened in the House of Lords debate. The Opposition did not bring about the changes—the Back-Bench Members did that. The same thing happened in the "In Place of Strife" debate in 1969 and earlier last year in the debate on petrol duties.
We can effectively present the case for the Opposition, but, more frequently, the change of mind comes as a result of Government Back-Bench pressure which threatens the majority in a way that the Opposition do not because they are threatening it all the time. Government Back Benchers, by their threats, can propose some of the changes to which the Government listen. That is why we are talking about 100 to 150 out of the 300 —�ž

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the debate must be restricted to a discussion of the amendments to the schedule proposed in the motion and that it is not in order to debate the parent Act.

Mr. Sheldon: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) led me astray.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman said that he was just coming to that point.

Mr. Sheldon: It was an interesting aside. In the House of Commons Disqualification Bill 1957, there was a detailed list of paid offices or places under the Crown. "Office of profit under the Crown" was also defined. The Bill no longer disqualified some of those previously disqualified.
The Act does not disqualify a Member of Parliament from the office; it disqualifies the office holders from membership of the House of Commons. It set up a certain consideration on the allowances to be payable to Members of Parliament and established that the highest rate for Members of Parliament, taking certain duties, would be the rate fixed by the Treasury at the highest levels of the Civil Service. There are other matters which we do not want to discuss—for example, the interesting position of clergymen and certain barristers. However, I might be forgiven if I mention just one aspect about banisters because, of course, they receive a certain level of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the parent Act and not the amendments before us.

Mr. Sheldon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for drawing my attention to the need to restrict myself to some of the matters dealt with more directly in the schedule.
The first schedule is in four parts. Considering the various offices that we are concerned with, we start with the judicial offices, and the first general question I shall ask is about patronage. We should know the nature of that and its value. The first question is, who appoints some of the categories listed in the schedule, how much is the office worth, and how much work is done? That is by no means so easy to determine when there are such a large number of offices in the amendments under consideration.
For example, part II covers bodies whose members are disqualified automatically. Everyone who is a member of the Civil Service Appeal Board is automatically disqualified. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the National Consumer Council are other examples. In order to understand and appreciate the necessity for excluding those people from membership of the House of Commons, one needs to know the value of the office and the amount of work done. Perhaps the Minister will deal with those three offices to give us some understanding of that matter.
Paragraph 3 of the part II amendments covers a number of bodies that are now to be omitted. Are they all being wound up? I know that some of them have been wound up. I am not sure whether that applies to all of them. Perhaps the Minister will reply to that question.
Paragraph 5 deals with the amendments to part III, which deals with the other disqualifying offices. That means that the office held by that person renders him liable for disqualification. It includes one office whose holder I know something about—the chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board, a distinguished industrialist. Is not that a part-time job? If so, how much is the nature of the job the cause for inclusion in part III?
Paragraph 6 states that certain entries will be omitted, including the chairman of a regional economic planning

council. The idea of having a chairman of a regional economic planning council in the House would be a novelty. Will the Minister enlighten us on that? The paragraph refers to a.
Member of the Council of the National Computing Centre appointed at a salary by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
I presume that the National Computing Centre is still in operation. Is such a person permitted to be a Member of the House if he is a member of the National Computing Centre Council? It seems so. I should like the Minister to comment on that.
The next intriguing case is in paragraph 7, dealing with ambassadors. The
Permanent Representative to an international organisation" is included in it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the time has come for the House to reappraise the whole schedule to determine whether the offices and office holders should be excluded but that perhaps this is not the way to do it and the matter should be referred to a Select Committee?

Mr. Sheldon: I am intrigued by that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman's general comment closely fits in with mine. This procedure is an unsatisfactory way of deciding these matters. No one can look down the list of a large number of offices, knowing full well that there may be a considerable increase in the patronage offered by the Government. Without knowing the precise details of each of the offices and the people who hold them—he is not able to see the precise nature of that change of patronage. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion might be one way of doing it. There may be others. Certainly we want to voice our dissatisfaction with the way that it is being done here.
Schedule I has four parts, but schedule 2 has only one and there is no mention of it here. Schedule 2 covers the ministerial offices. One of the Minister's colleagues is the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. That office does not appear in schedule 2—I am not sure why—and it does not seem to fit into any of the other categories. Pehaps the Minister will comment on that.
One aspect about which we are clear is that there is a great need to be vigilant in these matters. A substantial majority of Members are mainly or wholly dependent on their salary as Members. The main present safeguard of their independence is that of our traditions, which can soon be altered by changing circumstances, and the economic dependence of Members of Parliament could easily be increased by any enlargement of patronage. The whole subject has not received the attention that it deserves. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply, but I hope that he will deal with the more fundamental point about how this matter should be dealt with in future.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: This is a debate of some historic and constitutional interest, as we are discussing disqualification from membership of the House. As will doubtless be mentioned by other hon. Members, there is a range of persons disqualified from membership, including peers, lunatics, bankrupts and convicts as well as those covered by the 1975 Act.
As has been said, the 1975 Act excludes a variety of persons because they hold specified offices. We are now asked, albeit at a late hour, to exercise the powers


conferred upon the House by section 5 of the Act both to enlarge and to diminish the categories of those excluded from membership of the House.
It is important to emphasise that this is a matter of some moment not only to the individuals concerned but to the community as a whole, as it involves the loss of the right to select a candidate of one's choice. It is therefore a pity that we are discussing the matter at such a late hour, when the House is so sparsely attended and when there is no representative of the SDP or the Liberal Party present.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: There never is.

Mr. Hogg: As my hon. Friend says, there never is, especially when matters of constitutional importance are raised. However, I let that pass.
We are being asked to exercise our power under section 5 of the Act. It is important to mention briefly what the disqualifications are, as only in that context can we consider the order.
Under part I of the schedule, a number of judicial officers are automatically excluded. Under part II, all members of certain specified bodies and institutions are automatically excluded. Under part III, certain specified office holders are automatically excluded. Under part IV there is a conditional and provisional exclusion of certain office holders within certain specified areas.
It must be fairly clear to most hon. Members that a variety of occupations are inappropriate to be held by Members of the House. This is either because of the degree of patronage that can be exercised or, more importantly, because it is thought that they should be independent of Parliament or the Executive. In the latter context, I am conscious of the judiciary. One has to recognise that people's perception of what it is appropriate for a Member of Parliament to do varies over the years.
The Minister said that the 1975 Act was a consolidation measure. To find a substantive measure one has to go back to the 1957 Act, itself founded upon the report of the Herbert committee established, I believe, in 1941. The source of the measure under discussion reaches back 40 years.
The question that I ponder is whether the net has been cast too far. Part II of the schedule contains a list of 143 bodies from which hon. Members are excluded. Why should members of the Attendance Allowance Board, a Colonial Currency Board and the Red Deer Commission be automatically excluded from membership of the House?
Part III excludes office holders. About 180 classes of office holders are excluded from membership of the House. Why should the chairman of the Mining Qualifications Board, the chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal, the Constable, Lieutenant or Mayor of the Tower of London, the Lay observer appointed under section 45 of the Solicitors Act 1974 or the Lyon Clerk, whatever he, she or it may be, be excluded from membership? There may or may not be a decent argument in respect of all these classes. My question is whether the procedure being adopted tonight is appropriate. In practice, and in substance, this House, within the space of one-and-a-half-hours, is asked to make decisions of considerable constitutional significance.
I intervened during the Minister's speech to ask him to tell the House the process whereby office holders and

bodies came to be incorporated into the schedule before the House. I had hoped, perhaps optimistically, that he would say that a Committee of hon. Members met to discuss the matter. That is not so. A discussion takes place between Ministers and their civil servants. My hon. Friend says that he applies the criteria. What criteria? There are no statutory criteria. There are the words of wisdom in the Herbert committee report. One can refer back to the speeches of the Attorney-General in 1956 and 1957. Why not go back for that matter, to the place Acts of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? There are no clear statutory criteria that can be applied. Hon. Members should therefore feel considerable unease about what is requested of them.
It is not my intention to oppose the measure now before the House. I would not wish to be so provocative. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has spoken of those who hope for preferment. It would be a rash man who positively dished his chances by opposing a measure at this hour of night.
We are debating a serious matter. Anything that affects the composition of the House is a serious matter and is not to be taken lightly. I hope that the Government Front Bench will consider carefully the suggestion that I made during the speech of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Before we make further changes under section 5 of the 1975 Act, we would do well to ask the House, meeting collectively, to reconsider the classifica­tions of persons and office holders presently disqualified. It may well be that the only sensible way to do that is to refer the issue to a Select Committee.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I should like to start by thanking the Leader of the House for having responded to a suggestion that I made to him at business question time last week, namely, that we might be provided in the Vote Office with some degree of explanatory material to help us in the study of the motion. That was provided—I personally found it very helpful—and it was elaborated on in the speech of the Minister moving the motion.
That said, I hope to persuade the Government and the House—and I think that this would be in line with other opinions that have been expressed—that we should never again do this thing in the way in which we are obliged to do it tonight. This thing is, in effect, legislating. Of course technically the legislative act is the Order in Council, but the decision which the House takes tonight will in effect amend an Act of Parliament on the statute book. So what is in fact happening—and it is rather grotesque when seen in this way—is that we are legislating a vast mass of detail, set out on two and a half pages of the Order Paper, in one decision and in one debate—something which is crassly incompatible with the manner in which the House normally goes about its business of altering or making law in detail.
Without impugning the wider proposition which came both from the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that perhaps we should reconsider the whole procedure and the principles underlying it, I should like to make three major suggestions as to the way in which this process should be carried out under the 1975 Act, if it is ever to be carried out again.
First, I do not believe that the House should be presented—take it or leave it, as it were—with the proposals just baldly set out on the Order Paper. I have no doubt that in every case, covering every line of the motion, there is either a precedent or a more or less convincing reason for that item finding its place in the motion. In many cases:me can guess: one can guess that legislation which has not made specific amendment of the disqualification law has either abolished an office or created a new office or set up other bodies which are analagous to those which are already in the disqualification law. But it is not practicable for the most diligent of Members, confronted with a motion in this form, to satisfy himself, as he should be able to satisfy himself, what are the reasons and justification for a particular entry appearing in the various parts of the motion.
I think that there are two or three ways in which that difficulty could be alleviated or removed. The first is that the Government should accompany the tabling of such a motion with a statement or White Paper which sets out in each case—this could be done quite briefly—the reason why the entry appears—whether by analogy with some accepted disqualification or as a result of the alteration of the nature of an office or its nomenclature. An accompanying explanatory document of even that degree of thoroughness would be an enormous benefit to hon. Members.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I know that the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge and understanding of con­stitutional practice is very good. I should like clarification from him. If we had such a motion albeit with a clarifying statement, am I not right in thinking that the House would have only two choices—to accept or to reject it? It could not amend so as to delete specific proposals.

Mr. Powell: It is with that in mind that I would go further in this part of the suggestions that I was making. If the House as a whole—and we are a whole House tonight—is to accept any motion of this character, it should know that the details have been considered on its behalf by a Committee of the House. My explanatory document should therefore be the basis for the work of a Committee of the House, which would then certify to the House whether it agreed or disagreed that the case for any particular entry had been made out. That is my second proposition.
Thirdly—I would with respect think that this is elementary—there should be a degree of consultation between the Government and other parties in the House. I gather—no doubt this is covered by precedent—that no such consultation has taken place. I am told by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that the official Opposition were not consulted before the motion was put down on the Order Paper. Although the motion contains many references to Northern Ireland, no Northern Ireland party represented in the House was given warning or offered an opportunity to offer an opinion. So,in addition to the other two suggestions that I have made, I believe that it should be customary in future—I make no criticism as to the past—for the normal party consultations with which we are familiar to take place, conducted by the Leader of the House, as usual.
We are in another difficulty, which study of the motion throws up. There may have been some misunderstanding between myself and the Minister in connection with his

reference to offices and bodies created "by administrative action", but in fact nearly all—certainly the vast majority—of the offices and bodies referred to in the motion were created by legislation. I believe that all the Northern Ireland bodies were created by legislation, albeit in some cases by the special form of legislation which has applied there in recent years.
That legislation in many cases is several years old already. I take a couple of examples. There is in paragraph 2 the Labour Relations Agency. The unsuspecting might suppose that that was a United Kingdom or Great Britain body. In fact it is a Northern Ireland body, but does not happen to have Northern Ireland in its title, so the uninquiring would be unaware that it is just as much a Northern Ireland item as several of the other items which stand around it. It was set up under an Order in Council of 1976. If we look a little further over the page, we find the Planning Appeals Commission established under the planning order of 1972. So these are offices or bodies, as the case may be, which have existed for a number of years—four or five or in some cases even 10 years.
I submit that it is preposterous, up to 10 years after an office is created, for the House to get around to declaring—ultimately by law—that it is an office or body, membership of which disqualifies a person from membership of the House. On the formation of these bodies the Government when making the appoinments no doubt consulted a considerable number of people and invited them to consider whether they would serve on them.
At that time membership of those bodies did not disqualify a person from membership of the House. Whether it did or not would surely be a consideration which might well be in the mind of any person approached with an invitation to accept one of the offices or to be a member of one of the bodies. However, we now come along, after the bodies have long been in existence and the individuals have long been serving, and say to them "Oh, and by the way, you are disqualified from candidature for the House."
Despite the future increase in the representation of Northern Ireland which I know the Government having strongly supported the proposal in Opposition are anxious to implement, I cannot believe that there will be a tremendous rush from the membership of the bodies set out in the amendments to part II or the holders of the offices set out in the amendments to part III of the first schedule to the 1975 Act to put themselves forward as candidates. Nevertheless as the hon. Member for Grantham said, we are doing a serious thing. We are attaching a statutory disqualification to the membership of a board or an office. It is inherently unreasonable that that should take place at a considerable and perhaps arbitary interval after the board or office has come into existence.
So, my further proposition—I hope that the Government can assent to it—is that no such interval of time as has elapsed before we come to deal in this way with many of these offices will ever elapse in future. After all, even if we are to go on with this procedure, it would simplify it if we tidied up—more or less as we went along. I realise that a statutory disqualification tidies up automatically and finds its effect in the reprinting of the underlying code as amended. But surely there is nothing impracticable in the Government, every year or every other year, bringing forward whatever motion of this character may have been necessitated meantime by the


creation of bodies or offices by statutes which did not automatically carry on their face the parliamentary disqualification.
So that is another unsatisfactory aspect of what we are doing tonight—the inordinate lapse of time in some cases—which I hope can be taken into account, so that we shall not in that respect, too, again be presented with what we have before us tonight.
I do not wish to detain the House, and it would be tedious to do so, by asking questions of the sort which so naturally spring to everyone's mind in contemplating the disability of persons who are members of bodies as in paragraph 2, or chairmen and so on, as in paragraph 5, from being also Members of the House. I will just give one example which illustrates how carefully we should rethink whatever are the criteria for disqualification.
I find in paragraph 2 the Northern Ireland Economic Council. The council is a body valuable both to the Government, I trust, and to the Province and those who represent it in the House. For the life of me I can see no impropriety in an ordinary member of the council—a man who may serve on it for two or three years, who may be a business man or otherwise professionally qualified—also sitting in the House. I can see no patronage, no impropriety and no suggestion of perversion of judgment either as a Member of the House or as a member of the council, which would follow from the combination of the two.
I do not put that forward as a mature view, but on the face of it one is not at all clear how under any of the criteria such a function is brought within the scope of the motion.
Yet if we look across the page we find that it is only the chairman of the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights under the 1973 Act who is to be disqualified. That is most peculiar. Every member of the Northern Ireland Economic Council—an advisory council—is to be disqualified. On the other hand, there is the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights—a body that deals with much more difficult and politically sensitive matters—of which only the chairman is disqualified, while apparently all the other members could be members when appointed to it or could stand for Parliament and be elected after they had been appointed.
I pluck those two cases out of the list because they seem to illustrate the difficulty that an hon. Member is bound to feel in satisfying himself of the appropriateness or otherwise of what he is doing tonight.
I make only one other observation of that kind. I refer to
Director of Harland and Wolff Limited
and
Director of Short Brothers Limited".
I can see considerable argument as to the combination of membership of this House with directorship of a firm, which in the case of Short Brothers is not in public ownership although it is in receipt of public money. Yet in other cases there are firms also in receipt of public money whose directors can sit unblamed in this House. Is there any reason why one firm in receipt of public money should be singled out and not the directors of other firms similarly in receipt of public money?
I shall not pursue this matter. The remarks made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and the hon. Member for Grantham, as well as a perusal of the motion,

indicate that we cannot leave this matter here for the future. We shall probably have to do two things. We must find a way whereby the House as a whole can reconsider these principles afresh, and we must also find a more acceptable method of doing the nuts and bolts work under the 1975 Act than the specimen before us tonight—through no fault of the Minister presenting it.
While there cannot be a precise acceptance and a specific undertaking from the Government Front Bench tonight, I hope that before the end of the debate we shall receive assurance that both the narrower and the larger aspects will be considered maturely by the Government before there is any question of any such motion as this coming forward again.

Mr. Den Dover: I give my full backing to everything that has been said by right hon. and hon. Members.

I want to foll: ow the comments of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about paragraph 3 of the motion. I am particularly concerned about the first five bodies on that list, from
The Channel Tunnel Planning Council
to
The National Health Service Staff Commission
and the last three,
The Training Services Agency", "The Water Resources Board
and
The Welsh National Health Service Staff Commission".
Are those bodies now defunct, or has it become apparent to the Minister that their members should be allowed to stand as Members of Parliament?
My main purpose is to ask two questions. The first relates to local authority officers. Has any thought been given to whether members serving full time with local authorities should be able to become Members of Parliament? I ask that because for the first two months of my service here I was a full-time officer and director of the Greater London Council. However, I was on a special five-year contract. Earlier the Minister shook his head when comment was made about the eligibility or otherwise of clergymen. The subject has been mentioned in the media recently, and I should welcome the Minister's comments. I am not satisfied by the procedure. and I should greatly welcome consideration of such matters by the appropriate Committee.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: I do not claim to be an authority on the constitution of the House or to have dedicated myself to discovering the intricacies of the 1975 Act. However, I shall exercise every hon. Member's cherished right to play an equal role in discussing membership of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) rightly pointed out that this is an historic occasion of great import. However, it is bordering on a cavalier attitude to debate such a matter at this late hour. To tinker with legislation sacred to the House is something that should be undertaken only with the greatest care. I am particularly concerned about some of the comments on the motives behind membership of the House. Who would decide who had enough time to devote to being a Member of Parliament? If people were disqualified by statute from


standing as candidates because of patronage, there would be an obligation to outline why, and the salaries received by those in that unique position of being disqualified from service to the House.
A startling revelation has been made. The House is indebted to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for pointing out that, by default, Governments of various persuasions have allowed 10 years to elapse before the restrictions came to light and were placed before the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is not so much that restrictions have come to light, but that the legislation is retrospective.

Mr. Blackburn: My hon. Friend is right. Hon. Members value his comments, which show that the situation has been aggravated. My hon. Friend is not condoning it in any way.
On 1 May 1981 the House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill was placed before the House, and that is noted in column 1015 of Hansard. However, hon. Members will see that the Bill was supported by the right hon. Member for Down, South. It is sad to note that among those who supported the Bill was the late Member for Belfast, South, Mr. Bradford. That measure should be incorporated in the legislation that we are being asked to enact at such a late hour.
I direct the Minister's attention to the positive, constructive and helpful suggestions that have been made. I should like to be associated with the suggestions, particularly in relation to consultation. As a simple, humble, diligent Back-Bencher I look through the legislation and find that many questions come to mind and remain unanswered.
We should discuss the question of consultation. We should exercise an abundance of faith. That faith is well placed in a Committee which has the opportunity to discuss soberly issues which are brought before the House. My wish is that never again should we tinker with legislation in this way. I look forward, perhaps not this evening, to an assurance that the issue will be referred to a Select Committee, that there will be consultation and that never again will the House be placed in the embarrassing position which it is in this evening.

Mr. Hayhoe: The issue is narrower than the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) suggested. He dealt with matters in the basic legislation rather than homing in to the motion. I accept the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who stressed the importance of what we are doing tonight and the significance of it in constitutional terms.
I shall try to reply to some of the many detailed points and to respond to the wider suggestions about the way in which such matters might be dealt in future. If I miss some details, I hope that I shall be forgiven. I shall pick them up in correspondence later.
The right hon.Member for Ashton-under-Lyne questioned the procedures under which we carried out the provisions of the 1975 Act. His comment was echoed by the right hon. Member for Down, South, by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn). They made it clear that they believed that better procedures

should be followed. I shall return to the specific points and to the suggestions made by the right hon. Member for Down, South.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne asked about the amount of pay, or time involved in offices of profit under the Crown. The issue is not the amount of money, but whether the office is paid. He will know of the former Chief Whip of the Labour Party, who holds a position in the docklands development body. Because he does not receive payment he is excluded from the provisions, whereas the express provisions of the parent legislation would exclude him from membership of the House if his position were paid. The payment is of considerable importance.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the numbers of Ministers and whether we were up to our quota. This does not concern the schedule, because it is one of the main provisions of the Act. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the quota of Ministers overall is taken up. Primary legislation would be required to change the numbers.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about amend­ments to schedule 2, which lists ministerial offices. Section 5 of the 1975 Act makes it clear that changes to schedule 1 may be made by Order in Council. Any changes to schedule 2 would require primary legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. That is a descriptive title. It is not an "office" with a statutory basis.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: rose—

Mr. Hayhoe: This is excluded from schedule 1. The right hon.Gentleman asked about schedule 2. Changes in schedule 2 would require primary legislation. The right hon.Gentleman will find that some of the titles of Ministers are subsumed into the generality of titles that are given there. For example, "Minister of State" is a wide title, into which I am sure the Economic Secretary, as a title, would be subsumed.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: What the Minister has told us seems odd when we look at schedule 2 and see all the titles. "Parliamentary Secretary" is one category and "Minister of State" is another, but the others are spelt out in detail. The hon. Gentleman said that the Economic Secretary does not need to be mentioned separately—.we shall look into this matter—but I should like to know the authority for that.

Mr. Hayhoe: rose—

Mr. Deputy, Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Before the Minister replies, I remind the House that we are dealing not with the Act but with an amendment to the Act.

Mr. Hayhoe: A number of ministerial titles—for example, the Minister for Health—are subsumed into "Ministers of State". I suspect that the Economic Secretary would be the same.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: In charge of a Department?

Mr. Hayhoe:: No, not in charge of a Department. I shall not pursue this matter, because it is out of order. If the right hon. Gentleman reflects on the matter, he will realise that what I am saying is right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham was, to some extent, calling for a review of the 1975 Act. He is entitled to do that, but tonight is not the occasion, as he made clear.
I thought that he clearly described the process that we are following tonight. He also made a strong plea for a more deliberative effort to be made in dealing with matters of this kind. What he said seemed to be a trailer for the more detailed proposals put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South, who followed the theme of what my hon. Friend said by suggesting specific ways in which the House might deal with these matters in future.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I was saying that the House should re-examine the entire classification and that that should be done by a Select Committee. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that we should have a different procedure for amending the 1975 Act.

Mr. Hayhoe: I suspect that, whether we have the one or the other, they will tend to run together. I take the point that distinction is important.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said, in effect, that we were legislating in an important fashion by making these amendments to the schedule in this way and that the normal practice was to effect legislative changes by going through more extensive procedures. I accept what he said, but, as he acknowledged, what we are doing is in accordance with the provisions of the 1975 Act. We are not acting in any way unlawfully. We are following the provisions of section 5 of that Act.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if we went through the procedure in this way again a full explanatory statement should be issued with the motion. That is a fair point. I give the undertaking that in future we shall seek to do something along those lines to explain why certain individuals or institutions are referred to in the motion.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether a Select Committee should look at the whole matter on behalf of the House. That is not a question for me to answer. What he said received support in other parts of the House, as did his suggestion that there should be consultation within the House, through the normal channels, with the parties, on a matter that has such a wide effect. I shall bring these matters to the attention of the Leader of the House, who has particular responsibilities in this connection.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about some of the items in the schedule. He said that the Labour Relations Agency applied to Northern Ireland and was established under article 4 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. He then mentioned the Planning Appeals Commission, which had been established under article 88 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. He said that it had been in existence since then, but that only now was it included in the schedule as carrying disqualification. I accept his criticism that such a long interval should never be repeated. I sincerely hope that it will never happen again.
The right hon. Gentleman will know the particular circumstances that appertained in 1975, and although I was in no way responsible for those matters, because they occurred under the previous Administration, that Administration may have taken the view that circum­stances might change. At any rate, the matter has now been put right, and it is perfectly proper that we should seek to avoid such long delays in the future.
The right hon. Gentleman then mentioned a number of other bodies. He asked why members of the Northern Ireland Economic Council should not make a contribution

to our debate here. The answer is that members are appointed by a Minister and paid, and they are therefore holding an office of profit. He asked why all the members of the Northern Ireland Economic Council should be disqualified, but only the chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The reason is that the chairman is appointed by the Minister and paid whereas the members of the Council are not. The consistent theme involves appointments made or approved by the Minister, and pay is involved. It applies to the two firms which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—the directors of Harland and Wolff Ltd., and the directors of Short Brothers Ltd. Those directors are appointed subject to the Minister's approval and are paid, and both companies are wholly Government owned. In those circumstances, they fall within the criteria.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) asked why a number of bodies were being deleted. The reason is that, effectively, they have ceased to exist. He also asked about local authorities. Those who work for them are not normally paid by the Crown and are excluded. He referred to clergymen, who are not covered by the legislation, although there is a clause that makes it clear that the provisions of other legislation are in no way altered by the primary legislation. It does not affect the schedule before us.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West merely underlined his belief that there should be better procedures for dealing with such matters in future.
As I said in opening the debate, the House has dealt with such matters on four previous occasions, twice on the nod in 1963 and 1975, when no hon. Member thought fit to raise any point, and then in 1961 and 1968, when there were short debates. It is clear from what we have heard tonight that those who have spoken take a somewhat different view from that taken on previous occasions. I have known the House to be better attended, even at this hour in the morning. However, I hope that I have given sufficient assurances to all concerned that the suggestions that have been made will be considered.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayhoe: I hope that the House will accept the motion that I have put forward.

Mr. Sheldon: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that the Minister has sat down.

Mr. Hayhoe: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sheldon: The House will have noted the gallant way in which the hon. Gentleman tried to answer some of the questions about why certain offices should be included and others excluded. However, his obvious difficulty in going through the large number of offices that were mentioned by myself, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) shows that this cannot be repeated and that we must have a better way of dealing with such matters.

Mr. Hayhoe: I believe that I was not wise to give way, because the right hon. Gentleman is reiterating a point that has been made and acknowledged.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

`Amendments of Part I

1. —(1) En the entry "Stipendiary Magistrate within the meaning of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949" for the words "the Justices of the Peace Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "the Justices of the Peace Act 1979".
(2)In the entry beginning "Resident Magistrate" the words "the Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1935 or" shall be omitted.
(3)For the entry "Chief or other National Insurance Commissioner" there shall be substituted the following entry
"Chief or other Social Security Commissioner
(excluding a person appointed in pursuance of section
13(5) of the Social Security Act 1980).".
4.For the entry "Chief or other National Insurance Commissioner for Northern Ireland" there shall be substituted the following entry—
(4)"Chief or other Social Security Commissioner for Northern Ireland (excluding a person appointed in pursuance of section 13(5) of the Social Security Act 1980).".

Amendments of Part II

2. There shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
"The Attendance Allowance Board for Northern Ireland. The Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland.
The Civil Service Appeal Board.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
The Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland.
The Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland. The Labour Relations Agency.
The Livestock Marketing Commission for Northern Ireland.
The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Northern Ireland. The National Consumer Council.
The Northern Ireland Civil Service Appeal Board. The Northern Ireland Economic Council.
The Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
The Northern Ireland Tourist Board.
The Parole Board for Scotland constituted under section 59 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
The Planning Appeals Commission established under Article 88 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.
The Tribunal established under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958.
The Water Appeals Commission for Northern Ireland."
3. The following entries shall be omitted—
"The Channel Tunnel Planning Council.
The Employment Service Agency.
The Location of Offices Bureau.
The Metrication Board.
The Ministry of Defence (Army Department) Teachers Selection Board.
The National Health Service Staff Commission.
A Panel of Chairmen of Re-instatement Committees constituted under section 41 of the National Service Act 1948.
The Property Commission for Scotland established under section 224 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
The Staff Commission established under section 85(5) of the London Government Act 1963.
The Staff Commission for England established under
section 257 of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Staff Commission for Scotland established under section 218 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
The Staff Commission for Wales established under section 258 of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Training Services Agency.
The Water Resources Board.
The Welsh National Health Service Staff Commission".
4.In the entry beginning "An Independent Schools Tribunal" for the words "Schedule 7 to the Education (Scotland) Act 1962" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 2 to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980".

Amendments of Part III

5.There shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
"Chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board. Chairman of the Dental Committee of the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency for the Health and Social Services.
Chairman of the Domestic Coal Consumer Council. Chairman of the Electricity Consumer Council.
Chairman of Enterprise Ulster.
Chairman of the Management Committee of the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service.
Chairman of the Manpower Services Committee for Scotland.
Chairman of the Manpower Services Committee for Wales.
Chairman of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. Chairman of the Prescription Pricing Agency.
Chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights constituted under section 20 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
Chairman of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. Director of the British Aerospace Public Limited Company appointed subject to the approval of a Minister or government department.
Director of British Nuclear Fuels Limited.
Director of Harland and Wolff Limited.
Director of International Military Services Limited. Director of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company.
Director of Short Brothers Limited.
Governor or Administrator of a dependent territory within the meaning of section 50(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales.
Her Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland. Her Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.
Lay observer appointed under Article 42 of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
Levy Exemption referee for the purposes of the Industrial Training Act 1982.
Member of the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Member of a panel of persons who may be appointed to consider representations in accordance with section 3(4)(b) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973.
Member of the Board of the Royal Ordnance Factories. Member of a panel of persons who may be appointed to serve on a Vaccine Damage Tribunal.
Person appointed to hear and decide appeals upon the Trade Marks Act 1938.
President or member of a panel of chairmen, of industrial tribunals established under section 13 of the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.
Returning Officer under section 17(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 and any Deputy Returning Officer appointed by him.".
6.The following entries shall be omitted—
"Accountant of Court appointed under section 25 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933. Agent for Northern Ireland in Great Britain.
Chairman of a Regional Economic Planning Council. Clerk of the Crown and Peace in Northern Ireland. Clerk of the Peace in Scotland.
Clerk or Assistant Clerk of Petty Sessions in Northern Ireland.
Director appointed at a salary of Industrial Advisers to the Blind Limited.
Director appointed at a salary of the National Institute for
Housecraft (Employment and Training) Limited.
Director of the Peterhead Bay (Management) Company Limited.
Member of the Council of the National Computing Centre appointed at a salary by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
Member of a panel of valuers appointed at an annual salary under section 4 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890.


Member of the Permanent Joint Hops Committee appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
Officer or other member of the County Court Service within the meaning of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.
Principal Clerk of Justiciary appointed under section 25 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933.
Procurator fiscal or procurator fiscal depute appointed under the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland)Act 1927.
Sheriff clerk or sheriff clerk depute.
Substitution Officer of the Royal Air Force.".

7.—(1) In the entry relating to Ambassador after the word "Ambassador" there shall be inserted the words "or Permanent Representative to an international organisation".
(2)In the entry relating to Chairman of an Appeal Tribunal for the words "under Schedule 3 to the Supplementary Benefits etc. Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 4 to the Supplementary Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1977"
(3)For the entry beginning "Chairman of any of the Consultative Councils" there shall be substituted the following entries—
"Chairman of any of the Consultative Councils established under section 7 of the Electricity Act 1947 for the areas of Area Boards in England and Wales.
Chairman of either of the Consultative Councils continued in existence by section 17(1) of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 for the districts of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board."
(4)In the entry beginning "Chairman of a Local Tribunal" for the words "section 94(2)", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "section 97(2)".
(5)For the entry beginning "Chief Electoral Officer" there shall be substituted the following entry—
"Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland or any whole time officer appointed under Section 14A(1) of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962."

(6)In the entry beginning "Distributor of Stamps" the words "Manchester or" shall be omitted.
(7)In the entry beginning "Industrial Assurance Commissioner" for the words "Industrial Assurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1924" there shall be substituted the words "Industrial Assurance (Northern Ireland) Order 1979".
(8)For the entry "Lay observer appointed under section 7 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1976" there shall be substituted the following entry—
"Lay observer appointed under section 49 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.".
(9)In the entry beginning "Member of an Agricultural Marketing Board appointed under section 2 of the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1933" the words from "section 2" to "1933 or" shall be omitted.
(10)In the entry beginning "Member appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the Agricultural Wages Board" for the words "the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" there shall be substituted the words "a Minister of the Crown".
(11)In the entry beginning "Member appointed by the Head of the Department or Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland" the words "or Minister" shall be omitted.
(12)In the entry beginning "Member of a Wages Council or Central Co-ordinating Committee appointed under paragraph 1 (a)of Schedule 1 to the Wages Councils Act (Northern Ireland) 1945" the words from "or Member" to the end shall be omitted.

Amendments of Part IV

8. After the entry beginning "Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for the district of the city of Aberdeen" the following entry shall be inserted—
"Her Majesty's Lord amp; Any constituency compris Lieutenant or Lieuing the whole or part of the area tenant for a county or for which he is appointed.". county borough in Northern Ireland.
9.—(1) In the entry beginning "Her Majesty's Lieutenant for Greater London" after the word "Majesty's" there shall be inserted the words "Lord-Lieutenant or".
(2) In the entry beginning "Her Majesty's Lieutenant for a county" after the word "Majesty's" there shall be inserted the words "Lord-Lieutenant or". '.

Orders of the Day — Darlaston (Industrial Decline)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Bruce George: Darlaston may not be a place name familiar to many people here this evening, and I am sure that even fewer people have been there. It is a small town of some 25,000 people within the Walsall, South constituency that I am proud to represent. It comprises villages such as Fallings Heath, Moxley, Rough Hay, Bentley, parts of Bilston and parts of Wednesbury.
It is a town with a history stretching back to the medieval period. Earlier this evening we heard about new towns. Darlaston was a new town around the time of the early medieval period and the Domesday Book. It is a town built on history. It is rather ironic that we heard hon. Members today pleading party loyalty in accepting £1 billion for new towns. I wish that the old town that I represent could have only a small portion of the money being allocated to new towns. I would receive it with far more gratitude than Conservative Members appear to be accepting the donation to their constituencies.
Darlaston may not have won any national awards for the most beautiful township in England and Wales. For generations, its people have worked and died in conditions often of unimaginable hardship. Yet they helped to create the Industrial Revolution and helped to create for Britain and the world industrial fasteners, the nuts and bolts industry and engineering products. It is a town with foundries and can be encapsulated in the term "metal bashing". It has in more recent years adapted to the production of cranes, washing machines and machine tools. It is a town that has the capacity to adapt.
I bring the plight of Darlaston to the attention of the House for a number of reasons. I last raised the subject specifically on the last day of the previous Parliament. This is a good moment to compare what I assumed in the previous debate to be a rather hopeful future facing the town with the present situation. Industry has declined, and the decline has been accelerated by the Government's policies. Darlaston does not mirror the national and regional decline. If it is a mirror, it is a distorting and exaggerating one. The unemployment figures are now significantly higher than both the regional and national averages.
We all know how difficult it is to calculate unemployment figures. It is especially difficult to do so in Darlaston. Although the township is in the metropolitan district of Walsall, it falls within the Wednesbury employment district. There is almost 18 per cent. unemployment: in Walsall and undoubtedly Darlaston, if it were possible to calculate the unemployment, would have an equally high percentage. As I have said previously, unemployment figures tend to underestimate the real level.
A number of major companies in the small town of Darlaston have been decimated. Some have become extinct and some have been taken over but with substantially reduced work forces. Some companies have shed very many jobs. Is this the leaner and fitter industry that is being created? How shall we ever recreate the jobs that have been lost? They have been lost for ever.
In the past couple of years there has been an enormous loss of jobs. In June 1979 Rubery Owen shed 400 employees. In the same year GKN shed 860, while Atlas Bolts reduced its work force by 500. In 1980 GKN cut its work force by 84. Servis washing machines cut 170 jobs and Eaton Axles announced a cut of 450 jobs. Albion Bottles shed 310 employees from its work force. GKN Forgings announced 200 lost jobs. In March 1981 Rubery Owen declared a reduction of 340 jobs. In December 1981 Charles Richards Fasteners shed 150 employees and Bradley and Foster followed with cuts of 120. The largest cuts came at Rubery Owen, which axed 950 jobs.
Almost 5,000 jobs have been lost. Those figures, which were taken from an analysis of major employers in the area, tend to under-emphasise the loss of jobs. I estimate that the redundancies that have been notified and the unemployment in Darlaston has been much in excess of 5,000 over the past couple of years. The work force within the town has been halved over the past decade. l have never argued the crisis at Walsall and Darlaston began when the Government came into office, but undoubtedly the situation has deteriorated seriously since then.
All unemployment is bad. The school leavers are in a desperate plight. There are 7,000 unemployed in Walsall. We must welcome the job creation scheme, but obviously it is a palliative and no substitute for real employment. However, we must welcome the opportunity that it provides for at least some youngsters to have a form of employment.
Many of the middle-aged people in the area have given up the prospect of ever working again. I have spoken to a good friend who is not yet 40 years of age. He told me that when he applies for jobs he is told that he is too old.
In Darlaston many have little chance of finding jobs, especially in the immediate vicinity. Darlaston is still the home of the industrial fasteners industry. At one time over 90 per cent. of nuts and bolts were manufactured in the town, but the industry has been halved over the past few years. However, it is not falling on its face prostrate and accepting its fate. It is fighting back, but it requires more assistance from the Government. It needs a steel subsidy to enable it to compete with its many competitors. The EEC makes its task even more difficult. It is suffering from counterfeiting. It is being hammered by what it regards as unfair competition from abroad. I know that the Minister may have heard that tale before from other industries, but I seriously ask and shall shortly write to him to ask whether he would be prepared to receive a small delegation representing the British Industrialists Fasteners Federation to discuss some of the problems it is facing and ways in which the Government can assist it to meet the competition. I emphasise that it is not an industry that has done nothing to meet the competition.
One of the largest employers in my constituency, Rubery Owen, once one of the largest private companies in the land—at Darlaston in the 1960s it was said to employ some 14,000 people—is now but an utter shadow of itself. When I took a delegation to the Department of Employment, the only help that appeared to be forthcoming was an offer under the derelict land clearance scheme to grass the factory over if it was vacated. The redundancies announced by that major company were sad.
I hope that the Minister would relate the problem of one employee to his colleague in the Department of Employment, as he is typical of almost all the April 1981 men made redundant. Mr. Shenton was made redundant


by Rubery Owen when the company became insolvent on 3 April 1981. He received no notice payment from the company but later received a payment from the Department of Employment. He signed on as unemployed from 6 April 1981 and received benefit from 9 April 1981. When the Department of Employment paid his money in lieu of notice, it deducted 12 weeks unemployment benefit from the amount due to him. There is no argument on that score, because if that amount had not been deducted Mr. Shenton would, in effect, have been paid twice for that 12-week period.
We argue that after that deduction Mr. Shenton should have been able to claim 312 days unemployment benefit, which anyone else would have been entitled to. He was told that his entitlement to benefit ceased 312 days from 9 April 1981 and not 312 days from 2 July 1981–12 weeks later. That is inequitable when one compares the situation of two people both made redundant on the same day and each having 20 years' service with their respective companies, the only difference being that one of those companies has gone into liquidation. I agree with Mr. Shenton that he has lost £363—the amount deducted from his pay in lieu of notice—compared with a person made redundant without the company going into liquidation.
In the next few days, I shall hand the Minister a small file on this subject because a number of other people may be similarly affected and, while one recognises the existence of the redundancy fund, there nevertheless appear to be some anomalies that I should like to see remedied.
Another major company and large employer that used to operate in my constituency was GKN. It has gone with the wind. Darlaston Operations a couple of years ago employed 2,500 people but the employees have fallen victim to the investment policies of the GKN group. Our loss may be the gain of South Korea, Germany or America, although my constituents will hardly feel any sense of joy at the investment policies of that company. Its chairman, Sir Trevor Holdsworth, was recently knighted—I hasten to add, not for services to the industry of Darlaston.
The jobs destroyed outside Darlaston are equally dramatic so that one cannot say that people can escape from a small town and seek employment on the periphery. In neighbouring Bilston the British Steel Corporation is shedding 2,300 and Patent Shaft in Wednesbury is shedding 1,500. Therefore, one cannot simply jump on a bike unless one is prepared perhaps to join the Tour de France and cycle to Southern France.
In addition to the catastrophe in industry, Government policies have been disastrous in housing and social services. Over a period, and certainly over the past couple of years, the area has been transformed into a wasteland. We remember the Simon and Garfunkel song "The sound of silence." The sound of silence in Darlaston is quite deafening. It proves that monetarism is working, and the dole queues prove that this experiment in economics is having disastrous consequences and must surely be reversed.
The local authority in the town is not being idle in responding to the situation. In conjuction with the local chamber of commerce in Walsall it is organising a trade fair on 15 and 16 April. It is designed to promote the products and services provided by the town. It has also

created a small firms advisory unit to stimulate local industry and to attract new enterprises to the town. It has sought to develop an integrated approach to training and retraining. It is involved in discussions with the Manpower Services Commission, educationists and business men. It is trying to reclaim derelict land and use it for industrial development. It is investigating the potential of further diversification of the economic base of the area and is preparing further submission to the Government to include Walsall and Darlaston for designation under the Inner Urban Areas Act.
I am sorry to keep reminding the Minister of this fact and it is not his fault that we do not receive a response. The town of Darlaston, with its enormous unemployment and dereliction, has problems that are infinitely greater than those in many areas that are designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act. We seem to be caught between two contradictory elements. On the one hand, a new town receives generous assistance. On the other hand, if an area is regarded as an inner urban area, if receives generous assistance.
Darlaston is a township of 25,000. There is much dereliction and poor housing stock with a long waiting list.
Some 3,600 houses in the town of Walsall are overcrowded. Some 6,000 lack basic amenities. The industrial problems, housing problems and the problems of social services and of having many members of the New Commonwealth in the town are exacerbated by cuts in Government assistance. When the Labour Government left office the housing investment programme was £21 million. At today's prices it would be £24 million. Under this Government the programme is under £10 million. That shows that the seriousness of the plight is not being remedied.
I should like the Government to proceed with some sensible economic policies at macro and micro level. They should pursue policies more likely to produce co-operation than conflict. The area that I represent is suffering and stagnating. Its life-blood is being sucked out of it.
We need co-operation of industry, local government, unions and the Government, who should not be a passive observer. I urge upon the Government real action, not platitudes, commitment and not merely sympathy. We are desperately anxious to see the town of Darlaston, once one of the engine rooms of our national prosperity, assuming its rightful place.
The Minister may say that the West Midlands CBI sees some light at the end of the tunnel, but that is not to be squared with the evidence as seen by the national CBI, which said only yesterday that it envisaged
No evidence of any significant improvement in demand and output in the next four months.
The Minister has listened sympathetically to my case. I hope that he will apply pressure on his colleagues to provide assistance at regional and local levels. I hope that he will consider asking his civil servants to inform him of the plight of the nuts and bolts industry, which is still vital to our national economy. I hope that he will find some way consistent with the Government's philosophy of providing the assistance that that important industry and the town of Darlaston need to survive.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): As always, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has drawn attention to the


problems of his constituency in a compassionate and, at times in his earlier remarks, poetic way. It was back in April last year that we debated the problems of Walsall as a whole. Today the hon. Gentleman has rightly focused our attention on a part of his constituency most badly hit by the current recession—Darlaston. Although I cannot agree with a number of his analyses, and certainly not with some of the arguments that he advanced about the Government's general economic policy, I know that his constituents will appreciate the assiduousness with which he pursues their interest in these debates.
As the hon. Gentleman has said before, and as he fairly repeated today, the crisis that has hit parts of the West Midlands, and Darlaston in particular, had been coming for 20 years. I shall not go over the general background, which has been dealt with in previous debates. The hon. Gentleman referred briefly to economic policies at the macro and micro levels. He will understand why I cannot go into those matters in this short debate. Suffice it to say that in many ways Darlaston is a microcosm of those parts of the West Midlands that have suffered most from the current recession.
As the hon. Gentleman said, it is an area heavily dependent upon the traditional Midlands industries—nuts and bolts, vehicle components and the group of trades collectively known as "metal bashing". He referred in particular to the Industrial Fasteners group, and I note that he will be writing to me about that. The area therefore depended to some extent upon a relatively narrow industrial base concentrated on precisely those industries which, through a combination of the effects of the declining competitiveness of the car industry for many years and of the world recession, are most vulnerable. In short, it is the fate which inevitably befalls the overmanned and uncompetitive.
There are always honourable exceptions to be found in any area and I am merely generalising at this stage, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can reasonably contest that general analysis of decline. He will know as well as I the comparative figures for United Kingdom car production -1.7 million in 1965 and only 924,000 in 1980. He will also know that in France, Germany and Italy the trend is in the other direction, sometimes strikingly so. There, in a nutshell, is a large part of the problem. Others have met customers' requirements better than the once great world-beating industries of the West Midlands. They have done so continuously and progressively for many years, and now the effect is being felt.
The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the problems of Rubery Owen, where closures have had a considerable effect upon Darlaston over the past 12 months. Here. too, the particular example provides a good illustration of the general problem. The decision to close the Darlaston plant was part of the company's retrenchment plan. It was taken in the light of a drastic fall in demand for truck components because of the industry's competitive difficulties and of the decision by its main customer, BL, to order wheels from only one other source.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, BL was triggered in that direction in the first instance by the discovery that a substantial saving could have been made if it had sought the wheels abroad. In the end it settled for a United Kingdom supplier, but, alas, Rubery Owen was not competitive. One therefore sees clearly a further example

in which the problems facing BL, which it Is now attempting to sort out, have had an effect upon component suppliers.
Pointing to the problems, tragedies and sometimes mistakes of the past does not in itself help us to solve the problems of the present. We must use our understanding of what went wrong in places such as Darlaston to build upon the strengths that remain. I shall mention a number of the steps that are being and have been taken.
First, we have now accepted the long-standing argument, which extended far more widely in the West Midlands, that industrial development certificate controls—a negative growth, the restrictive side of regional policy—are no longer either necessary or justified. As the hon. Gentleman knows, on 4 December I announced to the House that the Government intended to take steps to suspend IDCs forthwith, and on 23 December the appropriate order was laid. It came into effect on 9 January.
There is, therefore, now no need for any company contemplating any size of investment in a non-assisted area to seek any kind of permission from the Government. In fact, as the House knows, we have not refused any IDC's since we came to office, but I accept that the very existence of such a system can discourage investment. I know how strongly this was felt in the West Midlands and it was always raised with me when I was there. I know that it was regarded as a psychological and administrative barrier. That will now no longer be a problem.
The second major recent change in Government policy relates to the way in which local authorities' capital expenditure allocation for derelict land is to be distributed.. The current year's allocation was distributed as part of block 5, on the basis of the recommendations of the local authority associations. However, for the coming year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment proposes to distribute the allocation for derelict land clearance himself in the light of the needs of each local authority. The hon. Member will agree, I think, that that is a significantly better arrangement. No doubt Walsall intends to submit a competitive and worthwhile scheme in the near future.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Government assistance. I remind him of the extent of industrial support available to firms in the Darlaston area. This takes the form of aid under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 to assist with new investment in the national interest that would not otherwise take place. In the period since May 1979, 184 projects in the Dudley and Sandwell travel-to­work area have received Government assistance to the tune of £6.8 million on projects whose total costs amounted to £34.8 million.
The hon. Gentleman will also agree, I am sure, with the importance that I attach to the development of the small firms sector in Darlaston. He referred to the action of the local authority in that respect. Small firms have traditionally been the lifeline of the West Midlands and the essential support for the engineering industries for which the region has been famous. In restructuring the local economy they will have a major part to play, although I recognise that it will take time for the effects to work through.
The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, accept that since coming to office the Government have done much to regenerate this sector, through a whole series of measures. In particular, I draw attention to the success of the loan


guarantee scheme. There are now 187 loans worth £6.3 million guaranteed in the West Midlands alone. This is lending that would not otherwise have taken place. A considerable source of new finance has been unlocked. The level of interest in starting up and expanding companies is buoyant. There were 2,074 inquiries to our Birmingham small firms centre in January this year, twice the number received in the previous year. I shall be near Darlaston later this week for a business opportunities programme, which I hope will be attended by some firms from the Darlaston area. I shall be dealing with the 76 measures that the Government have taken to help small businesses.
One of the underlying problems of Darlaston is the narrowness and vulnerability of its industrial base. I hope that small firms will play a part in rectifying that situation. Of particular importance are the aid schemes designed to assist with the application and development of the products, processes and industries of tomorrow. These include my Department's product and process develop­ment scheme and the microprocessor application project schemes.
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will have been disappointed by the take-up of these schemes so far in his area. The exact figures for expenditure in his constituency are, unfortunately, not available. I can, however, give those for the microprocessor scheme for the West Midlands as a whole. Committed expenditure now amounts to £739,000. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes our continued emphasis on this sort of assistance, geared to the needs of the future. We discussed the matter when he brought a delegation to see me. Anything that the hon. Gentleman can do to promote the awareness of the schemes will be helpful.
While such investment is of the greatest long-term importance, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's immediate concern must be for those of his constituents who are out of work. He mentioned one case that I shall pass on to my hon. Friend. I am aware of the number of redundancies that have ocurrred in the Darlaston area over the last year or so and the consequent high rate of unemployment. In recognition of that, the area continues to benefit from the application of the various employment schemes under which support or training of one kind or another—this is important—are available.
In the Dudley and Sandwell travel-to-work area—these matters have to be broken down into such areas -3,387 people are benefiting from the temporary short-time working compensation scheme and 464 from the job release scheme. Between 1 April 1981 and 30 November 1981, 3,420 benefited from the youth opportunities programme. A further 550 joined schemes under the community enterprise programme.
While such schemes are of course not a solution to the problems of unemployment, about which we must all be so concerned, they make a positive contribution to the preparation of the unemployed for their return to work. They are clearly a necessary short-term measure in a recession, for obvious social and humanitarian reasons and

to ensure that the work force is equipped both in skill and motivation to take full advantage of the opportunities as the upturn comes.
I have so far catalogued what we in the Government are doing to help the people of Darlaston. There is much that local government can do. I know of the efforts that are being made to assist small businesses, for example. The hon. Gentleman referred to them. Almost top of the list of the concerns of businesses, including small businesses, and very much so in the West Midlands, are the massive increases in non-domestic rates, which a dispassionate observer might imagine were precisely designed to discourage the development of the area, undermine the local economy and drive out businesses.
In the current year the West Midlands county council raised its rate by 37.8 per cent. and Walsall district council raised its rate by 37 per cent. There are reports of similar rises next year. It is a serious matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that rate increases of that size are destroying both large and small businesses and discouraging others from expanding and creating the jobs that are so desperately needed. I trust that he is therefore aware of the dangerous path that the local authorities are following and is counselling caution before it is too late.
I cannot deal now with all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He referred in particular to designated district status, which he has raised before.This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who reviewed the list of designated districts in February 1981, when he decided, on the basis of various criteria of deprivation, that changes were not then justified. He recognised that Walsall was, largely because of the problems faced by Darlaston, a borderline case, but the line must be drawn somewhere, and under the terms of the Act he must designate by complete district and cannot focus on an area such as Darlaston. That remains the position. However, I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question once again in the context of the further developments in his area since it was last discussed.
There are many other things that I would have wished to say about assisted area status and other similar points, but time prevents me from doing so.
The hon. Gentleman referred briefly to the West Midlands CBI survey. Among the most interesting things in it were its descriptions of what companies in the West Midlands have been doing in the face of the probelms. One in two companies has developed new products. In a surprisingly large number of cases an entire product range has been replaced. Three out of four companies have modified existing products and introduced new technology. Nearly 70 per cent. of the companies have broken into new markets. These are encouraging signs from the survey, because they demonstrate that many of the problems of the past are now being tackled by the companies in a way that will undoubtedly help in the future.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half and hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Four o'clock am.